Datasets:

izardy

/

malaysia-kehakiman-ejudgement

like 1

WA-A72-144-07/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) ENG LIN HUAT @ NG BENG HUAT 2. ) NG BOON WAH 3. ) NG AI LEE DEFENDAN 1. ) LOO SHIN YEW 2. ) LIM WEN XIN WYNN

Leave to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim pursuant to Order 18 rule 4 Rules of Court 2012. Preliminary objection for want of authorization. Order 16 rule 11 ROC 2012 and Order 15 rule 2 ROC 2012. Whether it was necessary for the Defendants to file the said reply and can the court exercise its inherent powers under Order 92 rules 4 of the ROC 2012.

22/12/2023

Puan Sangitaa a/p Subramaniam

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3dedaba2-2086-4292-afaf-cedb5a99d9fd&Inline=true

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-A72-144-07/2023 BETWEEN 1. ENG LIN HUAT @NG BENG HUAT (NRIC. No: 480410-08-6149) 2. NG BOON WAH (NRIC. No: 811208-14-5655) 3. NG AI LEE (NRIC. No: 790801-14-5956) …PLAINTIFFS AND 1. LOO SHIN YEW (NRIC. No: 900618-14-5273) 2. LIM WEI XIN WYNN (NRIC. No: 830401-14-6194) …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Application of the Defendants under Order 18 Rule 4 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or pursuant to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court) Introduction [1] Justice is not limited, it is a universal quality. This Court had this in mind when it granted leave to the Defendants to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim pursuant to Order 18 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. The application of the Defendants was allowed with costs in the cause. 22/12/2023 15:11:12 WA-A72-144-07/2023 Kand. 34 S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [2] I will now set out the background facts, the parties’ respective contentions/ submissions and my reasons for having allowed the Defendants application after having analysed the applicable law in relation to the issues at hand. Case Background [3] This suit concerns a dispute arising from a Tenancy Agreement dated 1.03.2022 entered between the Plaintiffs [landlords] and the First Defendant [tenant] in respect of one (1) unit of double-storey semi-detached landed house having an address at No. 8, Jalan Rimbunan Melor 3, Areca Residence, Laman Rimbunan, Kepong, 52100 Kuala Lumpur (“Premise”) for a period of two (2) years (“Tenancy Agreement”) ie from 01.03.2022 until 28.02.2023. [4] The Second Defendant is a guarantor on behalf of the 1st Defendant in respect of the Tenancy Agreement vide Performance Guarantee dated 01.03.2022. [5] The Plaintiffs instituted the action against the Defendants to claim for, inter alia, double rental for March 2023 and repair costs. [6] According to the Defendants, there are new facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs which have not been pleaded in the Statement of Claim in Enclosure 2. [7] On this basis, the Defendants applied for leave from this Honourable Court to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. Preliminary Objection S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [8] This Court shall address the preliminary objection raised by the Plaintiffs’ counsel before venturing into the merits of the Defendants’ application to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. [9] The Plaintiffs’ counsel raised a preliminary objection vide Enclosure 10 concerning the validity of Enclosure 9 for want of authorization by the First Defendant for the Second Defendant to affirm the affidavit in Enclosure 9 on his behalf. It is the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Affidavit in support sworn by one Lim Wen Xin Wynn is defective and therefore it should be rejected. This is so because the said Affidavit in Support does not expressly state that the First defendant, Loo Shin Yew has authorized Lim Wen Xin Wynn to depose the Affidavit in Support on his behalf. [10] The Court has also observed the following in paragraph 1 of Enclosure 9 where the second Defendant affirms the affidavit to support of the Defendants’ application in Enclosure 8. It is stated by the second Defendant that he is deposing this Affidavit in support of the application by all defendants. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [11] This Court agrees with the Defendants that the authorization can be implied through the express statement by the Second Defendant. In any event, even in a case of a defective affidavit, this Court opines that the preliminary objection raised by the Plaintiffs is a non-issue due to the existence of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 which is reproduced below: - Use of defective affidavit (O. 41, r. 4) 4. An affidavit may, with the leave of the Court, be filed or used in evidence notwithstanding any irregularity in the form thereof. [12] Following the reasons stated above, I dismiss the preliminary objection raised by the Plaintiffs and hold that there is no non-compliance of the rules stipulated under the provisions of Order 41 Rules of Court 2012. The Affidavit in Support of Enclosure 8 meets the preconditions required. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The Defendant’s Contention [13] These are the contentions of the Defendants for the application to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim: (a) that it is necessary for the Defendants to reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim; (b) that the counterclaim filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs is a separate action; (c) that the Defendants would be greatly prejudiced during trial if objections were raised by the Plaintiffs for introducing evidence not pleaded; (d) that the Plaintiffs will not suffer any prejudice if the Court allows Enclosure 8. The Plaintiff’s Contention [14] In opposing the Defendants’ application to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim, the Plaintiffs’ have relied on the following grounds: (a) Enclosure 8 cannot depend on a general provision provided for under Order 94 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 because of a specific provision under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012; (b) An application under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 can only be allowed if it is necessary and this is to ensure finality in the pleadings; (c) Enclosure 8 has to be rejected due to the following reasons: - i. that the draft reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence is in contravention of Order 18 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 as it attempts to introduce evidence instead of being a statement in a summary form of the material facts; ii. that Enclosure 8 is not necessary; iii. that Enclosure 8 intends to improve the defence; S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal iv. that Enclosure 8 is an afterthought; v. that Enclosure 8 is prejudicial to the Plaintiffs. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ENCLOSURE 8 A. It is necessary for the Defendants to be allowed to reply to file a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim [15] The Defendants by way of Enclosure 8 are seeking leave to reply to the Plaintiffs’ new facts raised in their Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. [16] Vide the Plaintiffs’ Affidavit in Reply in Enclosure 10, the Plaintiffs averred that no new grounds had been pleaded in the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. However, this Court is of the view that the Plaintiffs have pleaded new facts vide the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [17] The table below sets out comparison of pleadings as appeared in the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim and the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim: - (a) The extension of tenancy period of the Premise. Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim “7. Tempoh penyewaan Premis tersebut telah luput pada 28.02.2023 mengikut Klausa 1.1 Perjanjian tersebut. Pada atau sekitar 31.03.2023, wakil Tuan Tanah telah meminta satu pemeriksaan bersama dengan Penyewa sebelum Tuan Tanah menerima serahan milikan kosong Premis tersebut. “2. Tuan Tanah tidak pernah bersetuju untuk melanjutkan tempoh penyewaan Premis tersebut sehingga 26.03.2023. Tuan Tanah juga tidak menerima apa- apa notis bertulis untuk lanjutan tersebut daripada Penyewa seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam Klausa 3.2(b) Perjanjian tersebut. 3.Penyewa telah memegang milikan Premis tersebut tanpa persetujuan Tuan Tanah daripada 01.03.2023 sehingga 30.03.2023. Oleh itu, Tuan Tanah adalah berhak untuk mengenakan bayaran sewa dua kali ganda bagi bulan Mac 2023 di bawah proviso di Klausa 3.3 Perjanjian tersebut. (b) The Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to return vacant possession of the Premise. Paragraph 8 Statement of Claim Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim “8. Namun demikian, Penyewa gagal, ingkar, dan/atau cuai untuk menghadiri pemeriksaan bersama dan telah meninggalkan kunci Premis tersebut didalam peti surat Premis tersebut pada 30.03.2023.” “6. Klausa 6.16(a) Perjanjian tersebut yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 5(v) Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut hendaklah dibaca secara keseluruhan. Ini bermaksud Penyewa bertanggungjawab untuk, antara lainnya, menyerahkan milikan kosong Premis tersebut bersama kunci kepada Tuan Tanah dalam keadaan baik S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal yang sama dengan keadaan semasa Penyewa menerim milikan kosong Premis tersebut. 7. Oleh itu, , tindakan meninggalkan kunci Premis tersebut dalam peti surat yang tidak terkunci mengingkari Klausa 6.16(a) Perjanjian tersebut dan merupakan tindakan sepihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab oleh Penyewa kerana mendedahkan kunci Premis tersebut kepada risiko kehilangan. Malah, Tuan Tanah juga terpaksa menggantikan 2 keping kad akses baharu Premis tersebut kerana Penyewa telah gagal mengembalikan kad akses tersebut. 8. Memandangkan Penyewa telah menyerahkan milikan kosong bersama kunci Premis tersebut kepada Tuan Tanah sehingga memuaskan Tuan Tanah mengikuti prasyarat dalam klausa 5.3(a), (b) dan (c) Perjanjian tersebut, Penyewa tidak berhak kepada pemulangan deposit. Perenggan 7.3, 7.5 dan 7.6 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut adalah tidak benar dan dakwaan Penyewa dan Penjamin bahawa Tuan Tanah tidak menghadapi isu menjumpai kunci Premis tersebut bukannya alasan yang munasabah untuk menwajarkan cara serahan milikan kosong dengan sewenang- wenangnya.” (c) Allegation to defraud the Plaintiffs on real condition of the Premise. Statement of Claim Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim Not pleaded. “9. Merujuk kepada perenggan 7.3, 7.4, 8, 8.1 dan 8.2 Pembelaan dan Tuntutan Balas tersebut, Tuan Tanah menegaskan rakaman video adalah terhad kepada kawasan-kawasan Premis tersebut yang berpihak kepada Penyewa supaya memberi gambaran palsu bahawa keadaan Premis tersebut adalah memuaskan. Rakaman video tidak S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal menunjukkan keadaan sebenar Premis tersebut. 10. Oleh itu, Tuan Tanah tidak menerima rakaman video Penyewa sebagai bukti Premis tersebut berada dalam keadaan baik. 11. Akibat daripada kegagalan Penyewa untuk membaikpulih Premis tersebut kepada keadaan asal di bawah Klausa 6.16(a)(iv) Perjanjian tersebut, Tuan Tanah terpaksa membaikpulih Premis tersebut supaya Premis tersebut boleh disewa semula kepada penyewa lain. Oleh itu, Penyewa telah gagal mematuhi prasyarat mengikut Klausa 5.3(a), (b) and (c) Perjanjian tersebut. Perenggan 9, 9.1 dan 9.2 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut adalah tidak benar. 12. Keperluan Tuan Tanah untuk memberikan notis berkenaan kerosakan Premis tersebut dalam perenggan 9.3 dan 9.4 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut adalah tidak terpakai. Hal ini kerana Klausa 6.4(a)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) Perjanjian tersebut hendaklah dibaca secara keseluruhan. Ini bermaksud notis tersebut hanya bertujuan untuk memaklum Penyewa kemungkinan Tuan Tanah dan/atau ejennya memasuki Premis tersebut sekiranya kerja pembaikan dilakukan semasa tempoh penyewaan. Dalam apa-apa keadaan sekalipun, Penyewa dikehendaki untuk menanggungrugi segala kos kerja pembaikan Premis tersebut akibat daripada keingkaran Penyewa di bawah Klausa 6.16(a)(iv) dan 13(b) Perjanjian tersebut.” (d) Allegation to defame the Third Plaintiff. Statement of Claim Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim Not pleaded. “15.Invois bertarikh 12.04.2023 telah dikeluarkan oleh Trend Office Planner Sdn S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Bhd (“TOPSB”) kepada P1 sahaja. P1 dan P2 bukannya pengarah dan/atau pemegang saham substantial TOPSB. Penyewa dan Penjamin gagal menjelaskan bagaimanakah kos pembaikan sebanyak RM 5,290.00 boleh memanfaatkan kepentingan Tuan Tanah sedangkan Penyewa sendiri yang gagal membaikpulih Premis tersebut. 16. Hubungan antara P3 dengan TOPSB tidak bermaksud tiada apa-apa kerja pembaikan telah dijalankan kerana TOPSB juga telah melantik subkontraktor- subkontraktor untuk membaikpulih keadaan Premis tersebut akibat daripada kerosakan dan kecelaruan Penyewa. Hubungan TOPSB dengan Tuan Tanah tidak relevan kepada Penyewa dan Penjamin. 17. Tuan Tanah menegaskan bahawa Penyewa dan Penjamin telah memfitnah Tuan Tanah dan TOPSB di perenggan 9.4, 9.5 dan 9.6 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut. TOPSB merupakan sebuah entity yang berasingan di bawah undang-undang syarikat dan bukannya pihak kepada penyewaan dan tuntutan ini. Dakwaan Penyewa dan Penjamin terhadap TOPSB sebagai pihak ketiga adalah sesuatu fitnah dan dibangkitkan semata-mata dengan niat untuk memburukkan nama baik TOPSB dengan dakwaan frod dan dengan mempersoalkan integrity TOPSB dan Tuan Tanah dengan sewenang-wenangnya. 18. Tuan Tanah berhak untuk memilih mana- mana pihak seperti TOPSB dan kontraktor lain yang mempunyai kebolehan untuk menjalan kerja-kerja pembaikan pada harga yang munasabah. 19. Penyewa dan Penjamin sepatutnya membuat pengesahan fakta terdahulu sebelum membuat dakwaan salah berdasarkan anggapan dan kejahilan mereka yang tidak disokong oleh fakta. Fitnah Penyewa dan Penjamin hanyalah percubaan untuk mengelakkan liability Penyewa untuk S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal menanggungrugi kos pembaikan Premis tersebut. 20. Dakwaan frod jugak tidak berasas kerana tiada sebarang butir-butir frod diplidkan oleh Penyewa dan Penjamin. 21. Tuan Tanah mengekalkan hak mereka untuk memgambil tindakan selanjutnya terhadap Penyewa dan Penjamin berkenaan dakwaan-dakwaan palsu di perenggan 9.4, 9.5 dan 9.6 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas. 22. Memandangkan Penyewa telah gagal, ingkar dan/atau cuai dalam serahan milikan kosongan dalam keadaan yang baik dan menjelaskan Bil Utiliti Tertunggak, Tuan Tanah berhak untuk melucutkan cagaran. Tuntutan sewa dua kali ganda adalah berpunca daripada kegagalan Penyewa sendiri untuk menyerah milikan kosong pada 28.02.2023. Perenggan 11 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut adalah tidak berasas.” [18] The findings of this Court based on the above are such that it is necessary for the Defendants to file their reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. [19] The Defendants’ proposed reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim is not a bare denial without positive assertions. (a) The reply is to strengthen the Defendants’ stance that the First Defendant had not breached the Tenancy Agreement. Reference is made to the Court of Appeal case of HSB Bank Malaysia Bhd v Macquarie Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd [2004] 4 MLJ 398, wherein the Court held that: S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “A party may in any pleading plead any matter which has arisen at any time, whether before or since the issue of the writ (O 18 r 9 of the RHC). ….” (b) The Defendants’ proposed reply is also made to further clarify the facts that have already been pleaded by the Defendants in the Defence and Counterclaim rather than attempting to improve the Defendants’ Defence and Counterclaim. In the case of ESP Synergy Sdn Bhd v KB Enviro Sdn Bhd [2018] 8 MLJ 516, the High Court held that: “[47] The other reason for my allowing the amendment application is that a careful review of the pleadings would readily reveal that the issue of the alleged failure in the supply of slop oil by the defendant is in actuality not entirely absent from the pleadings of the plaintiff. This contention was not highlighted even by the plaintiff but the fact is, it was already stated in para 4.3(viii) of the statement of claim that the defendant was to undertake marketing activities for the slop oil business and in para 13.3 that the defendant had failed to do any such activities. [49] A reply to defence is also part of pleadings under O 18 of the RC 2012 . In any event, surely, this averment in the statement of reply by the plaintiff to the defence of the defendant puts paid to any argument by the defendant that the latter had been caught by surprise or in any fashion prejudiced by the questions on the slop oil supply. On this S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal basis alone, I find that the plaintiff’s application is in essence merely to further clarify what has already been pleaded, and should therefore be allowed.” [21] The Defendants’ in this case had also filed a counterclaim for a refund of their deposit payment. Following Order 16 rule 11 and Order 15 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 which is reproduced below, this court is of the view that since these referred provisions of law puts forth that in respect of a counterclaim, the person bringing the claim should be treated as the plaintiff and the person against whom it is made should be treated as the defendant, the application of the Defendants’ in Enclosure 8 to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim should be allowed with the leave of court pursuant to Order 18 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. 11. Counterclaim by defendant (O. 16 r. 11) Where in any action a counterclaim is made by a defendant, the foregoing provisions of this Order shall apply in relation to the counterclaim as if the subject matter of the counterclaim is the original subject matter of the action, and as if the person making the counterclaim were the plaintiff and the person against whom it is made a defendant. 2. Counterclaim against plaintiff (O. 15 r. 2) (1) Subject to rule 5(2), a defendant in any action who alleges that he has any claim or is entitled to any relief or remedy against a plaintiff in the action in respect of any matter (whenever and however arising) may, instead of bringing a separate action, make a counterclaim in respect of that matter; and where he does so he shall add the counterclaim to his defence. (2) Rule 1 shall apply in relation to a counterclaim as if the counterclaim were a separate action and as if the person making the counterclaim were the plaintiff and the person against whom it is made a defendant. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4. Pleadings subsequent to reply (O. 18 r. 4) Pleadings subsequent to a reply or a defence to a counterclaim shall not be served except with the leave of the Court. [20] Further, the High Court in the case of Emperor Classic Lighting Sdn Bhd v Wong Toon Weng [2021] MLJU 2746 held that leave to serve subsequent pleadings ought to be granted if it was necessary to do so as can be seen below: - “… The pleadings subsequent to a reply are referred to as a rejoinder (by defendant); surrejoinder (by plaintiff); rebutter (by defendant); surrebutter (by plaintiff). All except a rejoinder are rare. Even a rejoinder is seldom filed. It may be necessary, for example, where a defendant raises a counterclaim for libel and the plaintiff in his reply and defence to counterclaim pleads qualified privilege to which the defendant wishes to plead express malice, which he can only do in a rejoinder; or where the plaintiff raises a counterclaim to the defendant’s counterclaim, to which the defence can only be contained in a rejoinder….” [21] This Court is of the view that the Defendants’ proposed reply in Exhibit L-2 of the Affidavit in Support in Enclosure 9 did not depart from the Defendants’ pleading in the Defence and Counterclaim. The Court of Appeal in the case of Khazanah Jaya Sdn Bhd v Hisco (M) Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 MLJ 744 had held that parties’ subsequent pleadings must not depart and/or raise a new ground and/or claim inconsistent with the previous pleadings as can be seen below: - “…In so stating we are cognisant of the principle that in a reply to defence, the plaintiff cannot be inconsistent with any previous pleading, nor raise a new ground or claim. In Mat bin Lim & Anor v Ho Yut Kam & Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 13, Raja Azlan Shah J (as HRH then was) said:.. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal That being the case, the reply must not depart from the statement of claim. In this connection I may as well adopt a passage from the current edition of Bullen & Leake’s Precedents and Pleadings (11th Ed) at p 694: The plaintiff, however, must not set up in his reply a new cause of action which is not raised either on the writ or in the statement of claim; it is provided that ‘no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same’. In other words the reply must not contradict or ‘depart’ from the statement of claim. [43] The function of a reply in the overall scheme of pleadings in a civil action was considered and well expressed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Romar Positioning Equipment Pte Ltd v Merriwa Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] SGCA 44; [2004] 4 SLR 574, where the court held: It bears remembering that the function of a reply is to allow the plaintiff to raise facts in answer to the defendant’s case. In particular, it will be necessary to file a reply if the defendant raises a new issue for the first time in the defence. As the function of a reply is limited to answering matters raised in the defence, it follows that the reply should not be used as an avenue to introduce new causes of action which are not raised in the statement of claim. If a plaintiff wishes to raise an additional and inconsistent claim in the alternative after the statement of claim has been filed, the proper approach should be to apply to amend the statement of claim, rather than slip it in by way of the reply.” [22] This Court allowed the Defendants’ application in Enclosure 8 to avoid causing injustice to the Defendants while also considering the fact that the Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice in any way if the Court allows Enclosure 8. Reference is made to the case of Eon Bank Berhad v Foreswood Indus. Sb [1999] MLJU 158 wherein, in discussing the mandatory nature of Order 18 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the learned High Court judge referred to the case of S.A. Andavan v Registrar Of Titles, Negeri Sembilan & Ors (1977) 2 MLJ 220. There, Ajaib Singh J held: - "Litigation is governed by rules of procedure and no side may take undue advantage over another by side-stepping any rule and it is the duty of the court to ensure that the parties engage themselves in a fair contest.” B. Inherent powers of the Court [23] The Plaintiff’s contended that Enclosure 8 cannot depend on a general provision provided for under Order 94 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 because of a specific provision under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. This Court opines that pursuant to Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, the Court has inherent power to allow the Defendants’ application for leave as was done in the case at hand. Reference is made to the High Court case of Dominic Selvam a/l S Gnanapragasam v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2007] 2 MLJ 761 where Abdul Malik Ishak J held that: “The inherent jurisdiction of the court has been invoked in a wide variety of circumstances and in an apparently inexhaustible ways and manners. The courts have invoked it in many instances ……… The inherent jurisdiction of the court is said to be procedural and not substantive. And it is applicable in both civil and criminal cases (see Connelly v DPP and R v Jefferies [1968] 3 WLR 830; [1968] 3 All ER 238).” Conclusion S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [24] Accordingly, after careful scrutiny and judicious consideration of all affidavits and written submissions of both parties, this Court is satisfied that the Defendants should be granted leave to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim dated 8.09.2023 in Enclosure 8. Dated: 22nd December 2023 SIGNED SANGITAA A/P SUBRAMANIAM Magistrate Magistrate Court 4 (Civil) Plaintiffs’ Solicitor : Messrs ELISON WONG Defendants’ Solicitor: Messrs ARTHUR WANG, LIAN & ASSOCIATES S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

MA-22NCvC-18-04/2022

PLAINTIF UNIVESTERS SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN 1. ) GAN KIM HOE SDN. BHD. 2. ) GAN KIM HOE 3. ) GAN TONG HONG 4. ) LIM AIK @ LIM YEOKPIHAK TERKILANTAN SOO PIN

"O18 r 19 Rules of Court 2012 - application to strike out counter claim by counter claim defendant - whether counter claim discloses a reasonable cause of action - action by plaintiff in original claim against defendants for accounts and profits in partnership - partnership in certain businesses was already dissolved - plaintiff did not include one of the partners in the earlier partnership as defendant in original claim - defendants then counter claim against counter claim defendant for accounts and profits - held: since plaintiff in original claim did not include counter claim defendant in that action and does not seek any order against him then there is no nexus between the counter claim action against the counter claim defendant in relation to the original claim - if at all the counter claim is premature - application allowed with costs."

22/12/2023

YA Tuan Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a101bb7e-134c-47be-93ee-44729695a5de&Inline=true

22/12/2023 17:36:39 MA-22NCvC-18-04/2022 Kand. 79 S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N frsBoUwTvkeT7kRylpWl3g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m\—22Ncvc—1a—o4/2022 I<ancI. 7 9 22,11/2C2I , ~ IE :9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAVA AT MELAKA CIVIL sun’ NO: MA-21NCvC-18-M42021 BETWEEN uNNE51ERs SDN. EHD. PLAINTIFF AND GAN KIM HOE sun BHD GAN KIM HOE GAN YONG HUNG LIM AIK @ LIM vsox Ia businoss nwdev me name aI LIM AIK 5 co. RegIm-(Ion No: AFOZWS) DEFENDANTS .-.v-we (ORIGINAL CLAIM) BETWEEN GAN KIM HOE SDN EHD GAN KIM HOE GAN YONG HUNG PLAINTIFFS AND . UNIVESTERS SDN END 2. TEO KAI SIANG TAN 500 PIN DEFENDANTS (COUNTER CLAIM) sw »sa.u..m.mmm:g 1 mm Sum IHIWDIY WW be HSQG M van; M nIIgIruIIIy mm; mm. VII .mm mm Chang Ho (‘Cheng Ho semen‘) and No 72124: Ja\an Mala Kuchmg Hater known as Jalan Taming sen) (‘Tammg San Steven‘) [3] Seng Huallhen acquwred 50% mleresl wn Tnye Juo& Co (‘Tnye Joe‘) wmch ulso apanled a shall Fulmluum amen at No 20: Jalan Munsru Azauuuen (‘Munshl Abdullah sxenunw The other Partner In Yhye Joe was Tan Knee Pan [:1 rnen came L-ohcy changes by me Gwernmenl and sneu Mahysla .n zuoa mat ma non pennu nwnershlp ol multiple Shell n-nuns by me same business enmy in amer words wt became a onestenon, one-owner pqucy That necessitated the pamers In senq Hunt and Tnye Joe to ueeoneue men buemees wnlarests and en egreernem to dlsmwe me penneusnups was manna sometime m 20:14 [5] New‘ it is common ground and undvsputed between the summer cleun Plalnmfs and the Applmanunan me penneusmps m Seng Huat and Tnye .190 were brought to an and and cenann aqreemenls we reached, m pamculav — m vme..u..m.nwm:, 3 we sew ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dnuumnl VII mum emu [20] In mu cuurrs view, the courwar mam: F\aInlMs cannm mow rm and mm by Jimmy manna partnerships have been dlsaolvedy bulcn me other hand pvays lor a declaratmn underparagmphs 23 and 24 :71 me coumev Cliwn man me Applicant nowds 50% 0! prvfits m the Munsm Am-man Slalmn in lmsx cor Sang Huan and me rm and Second Counlar clam: Phlnwls and obligates mm |n gm an account var an pwms and assets M max Shell smmn [211 on me has of «ms Appucauan, n \s «ms Conn‘: wew man lime lha Ongmal cxaum Is nalxeekmg my order: decmmg the Omgmm mm Hammrs mteresl m any snares, prams and asseas m Tnye Jon via Sang Hum, Ihls Courl does not fund the! mere ems any plauswble cause oraamn wn tum beaween Ihe counm cwaxm Flaurmfis ana me Appncam To restate, me Ongmal cum Hamlin‘: cmm m for accounts m Seng Nual alone and mere Is nommg m me 0: M1 Claim Ptaunmrs smamenc 01 Clavm mat has named any claim on Ihnres, profits at asset: e« Thye Jon 7». Counter Clam: Pnamnns acuon agamsl ma Apphclnl us lhefelure pvemacura, In say In: least [22] For mm masons me cases vefarrsd In by me Counter Claim Namhffs should be msungmsned m vrssmJmyku17xRy‘nw|:Iw :2 mm. smm ...m.mn .. LAIQ4 m mm he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! DECISION [73] W115 CDIII1 X5 samfied (H31 "1! ADDHCIVIC HIS SHDVM that "18 Counter Claim agaIns1 mm does not amuse any masonanle cause olacuen‘ and \s an abuse 0! process 01 Court am satwsfies the renmremenls lor the Counter Claim agamsl Ihe Apphcanl to be muck out The Appllcaunn ws heveby allowed mm wsts L11 RMs,ooo oo uotil) RADZI BIN ABDUL HAMID JUDGE. MGN I:ouRT MELAKA Daredtms 22"‘ Decembu 2023 Fav the Ilants Yeman QT Chew 5 Co Paguambela dan Peguamcara No 4343, Jalan Ong mm Wee 75:90, Melaka Fv rm nl Yeluan v-p Koon My 5 Associates Psguambsla dan Peguamcara NU 47~E| (Txngkal I)‘ Jalan Ong Kim Wee 75300 Melaka sm vrssnumvxu17xWnM:Iw H mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm meme Ftreua tne Third Plamtms In the Counlelchlm tanned Sang Huet Eng Kee Enterprise to own ena epuate me cneng Ho s‘a“o"1 (b) the Ongmal clam Ptanmn. the estate at Ten TI! Seong and Tea Kan seng (me Counter clenn Second De1andaMHurmed seng HuatNelwcrkEnlzvpnse to own and operate me nnnng San stanon. and (c) that the Apelucant tanned Tnye Joe Enterpnse ta uwn and uperale the Munsm Abdullah snatmn [51 rouwtng tne above Igmemenls. Sang Hus! wntuh eonnnued to be owned by me Counter ctann Ptaununs ceased to operate any husmess and since 2004 each of those business entmes has run then respedlva businesses sapauatevy Ind mdependenlly wnn no obllgatlon between men: to account Var lhmr bustrvasaes In em: other There is also a wntten agreement dated 23 6 was between the Awhcnnt end represemetwes cl sang Huet confirming lhe same m »,e..u..m.ntmm:, a ‘Nair s.n.t ...m.mn .. med m mm .. mn.u.y mm: dnuumnl VII mum puma! m The Ongmll Claim Pmnfifl men filed a sun against all me Counter C\aIm Plannmlh and Um Ank@L\m Yuck us me Fauvlh Defendant seeking - (a) oraers lor dedarilmn craonoums and assets 0! sang Hustler me penud between 2011 and 2020. (:7) payment over 0| any share at prams due lo lhe ongmal C\aIm Plamlifl earned between that period, and (c) that me Counter clanm Plalnnfls surrendev over all the Origmal C\aIm Plannmfs assels [3] Eecause ov lhal sun‘ me co-mm Claim vlamxms men brought me counlar davm aqalnll the cnumer clam Dedandlnls mdudmg me Appncam Speuflcally against lhe Applxcinl‘ me Counlev Claim Plalrmfls seek for orders that - (3) me Sang Hum pannersmp had m can been Veqafly dissmved or anemetwexy, -1 we sang Hum punnmvun Vs mnma mu be subsxscmg, [or I declamuon mu the Munsm Abdullah Shanon m »,s.u..m.mmm:, s we smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! was held m lrusflorlhe Sang Hual partners p and me Fvsl and Second Counter cvaxm Pvamtms, 1») «or a statement at proflls and assets 0! the Munsm Amman Stalvon business smoe 2am till dake at judgment‘ and (c) paymenx of me Fm and Second Counter Claim Plamnffs' share m an prams and assets :2! that business ISSUES (2) The tssue in be delelmmed ws whether me Cnunler Claim Flalnnfls nave a paausmle cause M urman against me Applncam based on me Ongmal cwaum Plemmws dam egamsx me Counlev cmm Plaumfls THE LAW ON STRIKING OUT UNDER 013 :15 RULES OF COURT no] n \a not necessary 10! W5 coun |u restate me law on «ne matte! Hmmen var me sake al avevwy, u womd sumce lo refer m use ol|— qunled deaam m Bandnr auudor sun. Bhd. L on .v United Mnlay-n Banking Cnrponllon Serhm.1[1993] 4 cu where n wns new — s_rNvrsswwTvna17nwywpM:g 5 we s.n.»m..Mm..m..emm.mm,emm.m..n_.Ne W rne pnnerpres upon wmcn me Coun ms in sxsrcrsmg as power under any or [he low limbs are 19 r 19(1) Ewes 0! me Hrgn coun are we» settled It Is only rn main and ubwous cases that mean!“ should be nu Io me summery process under W: rule (per Lrndlsy MR rn Hulzbuck v WiIIanson[1B§9]1OBB5‘ p m. and me summary procedure can my be adopted whon 1: can be cteerry seen me: e c/arm or answer IS on me lace ol :1 'a!1vrou.I-Iy unsuslatnable" (Allomsy- General or Duchy al Lsncaslal v L A N w Ry On (1592): Ch 274, CA) It cannot be sxemrsad uy e rrnnuza sxarmnamm onne documents enureczs onne case, In order to see whether me psny nus a cause 0/ ecmn ar 3 rlelarves (wenrook v MaIonay[1P65] r WLR 1235, 11955] 2 All ER an CA ) am Me! VN have to consodens wnemer me cuunrercrerrn drscloses some cause or acmn end, /Ikewtse, wnemer the aererrce Iv nauntemlalm rerses a reasonable aeience It nes been sand that so long as the pleadings drscluss some wuss alsclton or rarse some quesnon ru tn be demoed by me Judge, me mere recrtna: me case IS weak and not likely to succeed at me me: rs no ground for me plsaamgs to be slmck out (Moms v Lawson 11515; 31 TLR as CA), (Wen/ock v Momney (supIa)) ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES [11] Learned Cuunse\ luv the cuunter clanm Plamlrlfs contends that the Applmam must be made a party to the counter cmrn because w ru rne..ur.rur.nW..vns,, 1 ‘Nair snrm mmhnrwm e. u... m mm .. mnnu mm: dnuumrrl VII mum pans‘ U 2] U31 this Court agrees war: the Ongmal Chlm PInmlm’s clllm Ihil they have the nghl to All the declaralmns laugh! with regaros (0 (he sang Hualpannarshlp men, spin lrom me Coumer Clarm Pnamms‘ Illa Applrcant must also be Iccwnlalfle In the Origin!‘ Claim Pllrmflf S the owner and operator of the Munshr Ahdullah S|alron‘ which Win! to me vemrwmlrallun exercrse descnbed Eadie! belonged rn pensta me Orlgmal clam Plnmurr and ma Counlav Clzrm Praumms In suppon at ms arguments Counsel tonne Ceumer clam P\aInMfs referred to me decisions. Inter-aha. In Govurnmlnt ol M-Iaysia v. Llm Kll Slln - unim: Enginoors (M) Bamad v. Lim Kn slung Halo) 2 MLI 12; unma Ovnnus Bank Ltd. v. cnung Khllw Bunk Ln1[196l)2 tau :5 and Run. uoonhy v. Ilunlorl Run! 0! sernngors Anur[1B71] 1 ML! 1n. On me ulhav rmnu, Learned cuunser re: me Applicant argues mat me Apphcam should not be made a party to me Cmmler Clllrn smce me ongmax crarm Plamrm ma non make me Apphcam a pany to me ongmal C\arrn men they oomd have done so srnce Sang Huat, m which (ha Ongmal Aaron Praumrw was a manner. alsra had Inleves1s m Thyedoo ll wns argued mm the Ongrnm cram Plamlm ‘S/NYriDn|JwYvkII7kFy1nWlly . mm. s.r1.n..un.rwmne LAIQ4 m mm .. nrimrrnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! H41 (15! oellbemtaly me not sue me Applicant because mey ma cunsenoed to Thy: Jon being me sole apemm av me Munshn Abdullah Station under the Appnmanrs la|h:r‘s operalmshlp‘ as can been seen In exh\bn“TSFr1'aHne Appmanrs avffidavn m enclosure 23 On lop av that were was a written agreement dated 23.5 2003 between the represenmwes avseng Huiloervflrmmg manna Appneamsnau mm and uperate me Jalan Munsrn Abdullah Stalmn mependenuy under Thye Jou enuerpnee since «he aweum of Tnye Joo vls-I-vls seng Hual had uermmanaa on 31 December 2004 (Exnmn ‘TSP-2') For those mums‘ me Cnumev (Nam: FlI\nWs' mspme should be mnfinad nsmeen the Onglnll cmm Plaintiff and the counw Claim Planrmffs Smce names nave Iemunlled men reepecuve Imerosls new m zone‘ mere ave no mere mlarests max me Caunler clam Plaurmlfs can mm me Applmanllo Reterenoa was made tn me use ans, imevalxa, m Bandar auild-r Sdn EM 1. on .v unmd unlayun Banking curpomian snmd [1093] 5 cu /[1991] 3 ML] 11: and Junlr Huun v. xnng Min (1991) 2 141.1 40/(199113 CLJ 2490 §rN »,e.u..m.mmm:, g ‘Nair smm ...m.mn .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrimnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! DELIBERAYIONS [we] Maw If must be stated me: me ongunax Claim Is pvermsed an an acuon co: aocoums, prvfns and ussats m rsleuan in me business 01 Song Hunt and may ere sought Igalrm me partners 0! seng Huat none The ongmex Clam mnm ma nat name Tan Khee Porn, me owner at Thye Joe 5! me relevant me, as a purine! m Sang Hum [:71 The Ovigmal clamn Pleumm excluded me Applucanl from me Ongmal chum desme me Nslary oi the Applucanre lather‘; assocnauen wwn mam cmougn seng Hual and Thye Joe The OngIna\ C\a1m Plamnfl does not seek any dedavalnry mm mm me Appucsnc mus, me diswla ws eseennally belween me ongmal mam Flamlwff as panner la the Fwsn Second and Thmi Oounlermaum Flammls In seng Huat [I8] Maw. me muession (ha! (hm com has mun me facis Dleaded m Ihe Original Claim Plalnlllfs Statement M Clllm I! (hit me Ongmal Claim P\a\I1llfV reoewed statement 0! aooaums 01 me Seng Huat partnership up m1ll2010,wnIch DZSEG on the 7365 msserned by the Counter (Harm meumms and me Aupncenx, \s a years aflar me reconcmeuun at the respecwe emmee xsusmess Interests The m vmsnumvke17xRy‘nw|:Iv xg ‘Nana s.nn nmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m may he nflmnnflly M1 x. dnuumnl VII mum Wm! questlun Ihal begs to be answered vs wnemer me om-an C\arm Plalnlfl knew of Ihe recnnonhalxcn axemse dasonbed earimr It wamd appear (ram exmm 'TSP—1', that as far as Thye no a consumed, the OngIna\ Claim naumm knew and agreed back m 2UD3lhi1 Sang Hual wifl no ‘anger have any Inlersn In Thye J00 However, what VI lell outstanding, Vi seems Is the rellllollshlp Ind ubhgallons mween the partners M Sang Hual Therefuve, whatever was me panners av Seng Hual may have between mam have no mvam relanon tn me Apwucann smca bum Seng Hual and Tnya Joo have parved ways nacx m mu:/2004 [Is] As such IhaApp4u:an( xsenmied lolakeme poimon lhanhe mspwa befiwesn [he Ongmnl Claim Pllllmfl m the Oflgmal Claim and the Cuunlav Claim Plemtxlls hale nu dlmct concern to lhe Apphcanl There \s nu nexus between the dispute beiween me panners In Seng Huat and me Appllcanl The Applicant Is armed to raw an me agreements m 2004 and zoos smca me agreement and us elfem rs not magma by me Counter Claims Pmmms More so, the fact that me Oflglnal C\a\m Plalrlml seeks no dispute WI"! the Applicant puts me Appncam amends the punur: m »,a..u..m.nwpm:, ma am ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy M1”: dnuumnl VII mum am

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-22NCvC-119-04/2019

PLAINTIF HS Realty Sdn Bhd DEFENDAN Yeoh Hock Khoon (Sebagai Wasi Untuk Harta Pusaka Yeoh Bak Soay @ Neoh Bak Sooi, Si Mati)PIHAK TERKILANPAYA TRUBONG ESTATE SDN BHD

In determining the application of Order 14A of the ROC 2012, it has become established law that the question raised if decided allows this action to be disposed of without the need for a full trial and the calling of witnesses. A Guide to the application of Order 14A of the ROC 2012 can be quoted from the case of ONG SIANG PHENG v MILLENNIUM MALL SDN BHD & ORS [2021] MLJU 1019 that lists as follows:“(1) O.14A is only applicable to determination of questions of law: O.14A r.1;(2) the question of law must be suitable for determination without the full trial of the action: O.14A r. 1(a);(3) such determination of question of law will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein: O.14 A r.1(b);(4) the prerequisites in items (1) to (3) above are cumulative prior conditions to be fulfilled before this O.14A procedure can be invoked: Dato’ Sivanathan a/l Shanmugam case (Court of Appeal) (supra);(5) the word “may” at the beginning of O.14A r.1 gives the Court the discretion whether or not to invoke the O.14A procedure even if the three prerequisites are fulfilled;(6) Where there is a dispute by the parties as to the relevant facts, O.14A is not applicable: Thein Hong Teck case (Federal Court) (supra), Director of Forests, Sarawak & Anor v. Racha Urud & Ors and other appeals (Federal Court) (supra); and(7) O. 14A should not be used to determine questions which are based on hypothetical, ambiguous or fictitious facts: Thein Hong Teck case (Federal Court) (supra), Director of Forests, Sarawak & Anor v. Racha Urud & Ors and other appeals (Federal Court) (supra);(8) The question of law or construction to be determined by the court under O. 14A should be stated or formulated in clear, careful and precise terms, so that there should be no difficulty or obscurity: Director of Forests, Sarawak & Anor v. Racha Urud & Ors and other appeals (Federal Court) (supra); and(9) Where the issues of disputed fact are interwoven with legal issues raised, it will be undesirable for the court to split the legal and factual determination: Thein Hong Teck case (Federal Court), Director of Forests, Sarawak & Anor v. Racha Urud & Ors and other appeals (Federal Court).

22/12/2023

YA Tuan Azizan bin Md. Arshad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9580a009-3ba4-4575-bbc5-addbfe1d8a78&Inline=true

22/12/2023 16:08:40 PA-22NCvC-119-04/2019 Kand. 67 S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N CaCAlaQ7dUW7xa3b/h2KeA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1>A—22m:vc—119—o4/2019 Kand. 57 22/12/2013 15:02-an DALAM MANKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI PULAIJ FIMANG GUAIMN Mo. PA-zzmwc-119-aalznnl ANTARA HS REALTY SDN END (No Syankal 1103761-K) PLAINTIFF DAN l YONG ENG WAH1KF 500801076555) 2 YEOH HOOK KHOON (KP seuaza-075139) (SEEAGN WASI HARTA PESAKA YEOH BAK soAv@NEoH BAK sool, SIMATD 3 YEOH HOCK KHOON [KP 660823-D7-5139) (SEEAGAI WASI HARTA PESAKA WONGSEOH MOEV. SlMATI| DEFENDANTS GROUNDS or JUDGMENT [ENCLOSURE 45] Introduction [I] This Is the Appellant’: (Plalnw/HS Realty) application In dlspose :71 the claim by way cl Order MN Order 33 Rules ol the Conn 2012 (Enclosure 45) Thus applicaclon was opposed bylhe De1endirlIs(Sscond slN c:cAIau7¢uw7u:Ibmzl<uA ‘ um Sum ...m.. WW be used M mm u. nllnlrullly MIN; dun-mm VI] .mm mm and Tnlm) The com ziler neanng lnn. appllcalmn his dlsmlssed Enclosure 45 will! mess ln me cause [21 The Plalnzlll ls necsalisrled Ind nas appealenlo llle calm omppeal agaIns1 me declslon wmal was deilveled an 2l ll 2023. The pames are relened to as may were In the High Court [:1 A: only lne Second and Third Defendants appme lm nppllcatlon, they will be relenea In as Delendanls unless unlenmee scaled Clufl new: [4] The Plzlnlflfs filed me lolluwing dnwmenls ln support of me said Apmlcunun la) Nmls Pemlnhman dated 22.09 2022 llhe sald ‘Apnllcanun'). (b) Alrdwlt In Suvpnrl affirmed by on: Boon Ewe on 22.09 2022 (‘me suppnmng Mfidavll‘) (c) Almleyn In Reply Ifllrmed by Om Bonn Ewe on 21 la 2022 (‘Plllnllffs Amduvn ln Reply‘) la) Alfidavlt In Reply (2) alllnnea by Our Boon Ewe an 24 112022 (‘P|aln|lfl'§ Amdavlt In Reply (2)') [5] The Delenaanls ln upposlnn lne sald appllcallon and had filed me iullawlng documents, namely sln cacnuuvauwvuablnzxu 1 Mane s.n.l nnvlhnrwm be used M yaw ms nflmnnflly MIN: dun-mm VI] nF\uNG pm c Drum 33 Rule 5 mm: R00 2012 5 DllVHFE‘MaC1bflH mrammn alpmllvlmuy we M law In m Ina Conn Il1I| ma demsmn Mlrw question av mm mm m a cause nr maltnrand med swarvtalyhom lne unseat mI1\arsubi1armnHy dtipwes ollhe cause u mifler m renuan me mm of (he cause at mane! unnemum u may dlsmrss ms cause ar manner or make such mus may nr gm luH1[n6§IIieM|h¢YErVI .. mly be mil nu Cues us] In dalennirung the npphsahen av Order MA 01 me ROC 2n12, n has become ambushed llw lhul the gunman ruined w aecmau allows mus aclvan In Do dlsposad av wvlhom me need lcr - mu man and the calling of wvlrlevsles A sum In me Ippllcalmn M Ovdar MA mm: R00 2012 can be quoneu Vmm the me of one sums mine 11 MILLENNIUM MALL sou EHD 5 oRs[zu2uuILJu1n19 mac Inn: is comm: -m o 14.4 is my nnplrclbla maemmmon ofquesoons mm 0 an r 1. my me quesnunollnw must be ummle luv aeagnmnaw. mrmm meml\II\nlA71lha action. 0 mu 1(3)‘ 11 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm my sum fletalmlnilynn olquailtou olhw mu many, dmennm: an ermre cause or mnterar iny am 015:»: meyem o u A r 1(0)‘ uy the prelequymei m ytems my m 13) above in wmuyanve way mmnms m be fumed more ms 0 unnnmame an be ynvam Dam‘ smmmn all syunmugam vase Acoun :1IAppe.I1) (wave). (5) ma wam ‘may‘ at me begmmng o401MvIgyv=sIne Courllhe uymenmn wmyma mun unvnkemeo nu pmauuu awry n ma mm pm-qu-om Iva mmym (5) When move . Idnpma lyyma p-amen .5 In me mymm lnctsy o MA . nu| .ppy.um. nun Hang mu nu: (Fudu-I cwny A-umy, Du=:1nrn1Fansuy Slmvak Aluvovv mm. um a. 0:: mm mhu apmn: (Federal Conn) ysumy nd 47; 0 MA should nu he mud Indmarmyne queshoos whsch m med on nypo1nerx.ay..mn.gmm orfiamomiads Them Nana rm case1Fa1er.Ill2wn) (WW3; Dlveclnrol Fmesls, Snmwak a. Anovv Run: um A ms ma mherlppaas (Fzdamy canny flupm) Lay The quesllon of m or mnxuurmnu tn be deunnmed by me man war 0 «M mom be mm 04 lunnuyltaed m delr, cumul Ind p-‘cu lawn. w mm mm mum on no dllfiumy nv omcunly Duruum of Fmmy Sarlwnk a Amrv nscyu Um 5 0:: mm mm apoeuls rr-may cu-my (suprnyy znd any where m. mm Lfmipubed an .m ymemwvcn mm mm: Issue! aim, mu neun¢..m<.cum= wunrn spmlha ueguuanavacuuy dalmmmanun Them Hang rm uIe(Federz\ cam. nnemym rerun, Sariwik 5 Am V my. uma 5 on and my meals {Pascal Donn) sm cacAuu7auw7u:bmzKuA 11 mm. smm n-vyhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my y... mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muym v-mxy nefenderite Iublll om Flrll Quullon (a) The Deundnnts’ Interest in the said portion of lend which was not registered would deleat the Pl 'ntit're registered interest on the “la land wherein the Plaintiff is the subsequent naria lid: purchaser tar valuable consideration according to 3.340 National Land code 1965; [20] In this case Piaintitrii ownership at the said Land is disputed The Second and Third Deienderit are cieirriing that they are the treneticiai pwner in equity 0! the part in Land and Prerriisee when the deceased bought part ofthe land on 31 us me ciearly this is a dispute as in tact: and not suitable to be decided under order 14Aarifl order 33 dithe Rules ol court 2012 [21] iii the SPA dated 31 as me, the Deceased had naught pan at the Land trcrii Paya Tmbong Estate ter a siirii at RMt,stio Full purchase price was duty paid Pursuant to the SPA 01 the Premises dated :51 oct 1976, the deceased bought the said premises from Lim Lean Tcon @ Llm Boon Toon and chang shiri wee tor a surii at RM30,U00 no Full purchase price was paid in the vendor and vacant possession 01 the Fvemises was given to the nepeased [221 The Deceased were in ptmessipri etthe said Premises and pan d1 the Land The Pieintm iii hnidinp pan oi the Land on trust for the Deleridents since the Deceased has fully paid the purchase price tor pun sin C:EAlaD7dUW7uZ|b0tZK|A ” -we a.ii.i re-viherwm be tit... M yaw he nflmrieflly mi. dun-vinht vta eFiuNG WM! vi lrre land, Paya Truhong ls lmlulng pan pl me land all «run lor lne Deceased and lherelore has nalrung In sell Any subsequent buyer annex pan or lne sald land uses npl hold any lnlaresl and themlora, lha Plainlm‘ does no: nolu any mleresl on mac pan onne land [23] The Plainull IS bplumg pan of me Land on trust tor the Delenaama and me Plalnun IS not a purchaser ln good lann wlcn valuable consideration ln lms case the Planmm has knowledge vilhe Delendanls' uwnetshlp pnor la purchaslng me Bald Land [24] The Defendams aubrnlcslnal me Plalnlm purchased the land below market value and ma l=lalnnll has uumminad and/or panrupaled In the lraua wlln me lmemlon la uepnve the Defendants af lhells rlgm as the uwrler nrf the Premlaes and Pen :71 (he Land The Delarmarna were enallengmg on the fan that the Plarnml am nal hold an lndeleasuble lnle vmereln |he Plalnllfl‘ us mt a subsequent purchaser rn gced lam to: valuable oonsluel-anon [25] Plalnliff had averred that mey were subsequent bona lids purcnaser with value an that mey have paid me lull purcnase pnce and purauam lo a search, they have no Knalmedge on me Defendant‘: nghls on me salu pan pl land and me sald premlsel However, lrom me vans of me case, me Plarnnll us nol subsequent puvchaser In good calm lol valuable corlsldermrun [23] It Is insufficrenl Io anly cnnducn land search In charm that me sale was made m good lallh wrlhaul nonce (refer In SUPREME ENVV sun BHD V AEUL RAHIM BIN smou (sunny and achng as persons! represenname and reptesenlmgthe estate orsINcIN BIN KARNEM, THE DECEASED) & ANOR mm I MLJ 4: [27] Bassa on me vacts 0! «ms case‘ the P\am|M rs not a bona frde purchaser Tne Plamrm knew and recognized the Derenaanrs as the arwnet cl me premrses Known as 1101-Gr Fsya Terubong Road, Mukrrn 13‘ Aye! Ilam, Purau Fmang as woven m the saw dared 0210 2014 As such‘ the Plarmm wumd have known that me mlevesl rs neld lay me Debndams Howevev, me Plsunmv proceeded re cake the nsk af buying me rand hemuse unne low seurng pnee [2a] The Plamufl may show prlma isms evrdsnee manney are bana rrde purchaser wrmom any knuwiedue of me Defendants‘ In|eres1 and ngms over me psn 01 me said Lana However, this rs mnlriry In what rs concerned In the sare and Purchase Agreement between ssnrcrsd sun Bhd (hereafter nfievred ro as ‘Senm1d') and Pkamlifi dated 02 102014 (‘The SPA daled 02 to 2014“) [29] Furthermore‘ m Annexure 1 nlme sand SPA‘ me name afVeo¢| Bah sosy A Wang seen Many‘ me ueceaseas name was cleafly stated as are mine! onne sax: pmpeny known as H01»N, MK13‘AyerlIam Mud: rs ruenxmea m nem 13 0901: H51 otwners ms cleafly shows me Prarnun has knowiedge enne De4enr.-xanrs‘ ngnra before purchasmg rne ssra land and ma made me pursnsse iubjad to sum 2. nghl srn cacMau7¢uw7uJb4nz><aA 15 -use s.n.r ...n.mn as used m mm ms mm-y mm: flan-mm VI] afluNG Wm [301 The Plemtm holds pan pl the urn Land subgemla the Delendams‘ hght as a peneliclal owner ln eqtmy It la submmed that Delendams‘ equllable rlght prevarl against the Plamtnrs reglstralian Moreover, the Plalhtifl holds a deleesrlaletrtlethatcan be set nslde pelng not a purchaser lh good lalth wrth valuable ccrlslderallon The eurdehtral burden is on the Plarntrtl to prpve that ll ls a purchaser ln good lalth wlth valuatzle cohsrdet-atldh wrlhout rrdtlpe [CH] ll ls submllled that Paya Trubcrlg Estate has cornrnltled fraud when they not anly lalled ld apply ler subdlvlslnn put surreptltlausly sold the whole land to cornrnenlal star sdn Ehd lherernalter reterred In as ‘Conllnerllal S1av‘7 at a low prrde cl RMO osaa per square leel Faya Trubung Estate and Conllnenlal star have dtnalned unlusl enrrdrrnent at the expense pl the netendanls [:11 The Plarntwl knew dl these lransadlorls and the lraud carrrrnrlted They also knew of the Defendants interest put proceeded to purchase the Land below the market value The Plalhtm his pamcrpated rrr the lraud when lt purchased the land at a low phce 13:] It ls submllled that there ls a cnnsplracy to meat the Detendants and tp sxllngulsh merr hght as the owner olthe Premlsea and part dl the 5114 Land As such, the Defendants’ bensficlary lrlterest musl be prdteued and lull tnal should be epnduaed Ia deterrrnne all the Ivallalsle evldehce so that a lusl and lalr deaaldrl can be arhved Sncnnd Oueslion nu Deleumams were Ilme narred vmm Inlurclng ms rights according to Llmflalion Am 1953 after 41 yuan In-vs pissed lrom me dlla aflhe sue A Pmnne Agneemum dmu :1.na.191e [34] On (he wssue or hmwauan, n \s wen esoabnshea lhal me ngm Mlclmn accrued when a lhraal is made to mspnssess ma Devemams vmm ms land (refer lo NORAINI 51 MOHAMED NADI v PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN FERUMAHAN sun EHD [21121] 4 ML: 152) [351 me law ‘s dear on me nghl to sue on a coma accrues an Its meson The Defendants only knew about the breach by Pay: Tmbong Estate when ha renewed me Nalioe en can dated 23112012 from Ihe wamm n 15 me obflgallon ai Paya Trubung Escaze Ia Inlorm me s never-dams mm the status .71 me subdwlsxon ms may lanea to do [as] m ms present case, Iha cause or :c1Inn took place when Dalendanls received me Nolvee Io nun uauu 23 11 2015 «mm me Flamlufl‘ u must be nignngmea mm m the agreement. mam ws no oomnlelunn ms (or Paya Tlubong Esme lo subd de the land A: men. there was no um» lrlme my Puya Trubong Estate to apply tor xubdmsmn and there <5 no reason for ma Defendants to susped Fay: Trubmg Estate av repuammg than me name baruam ll hmnmmn Is apphcable, It would mania run ham ms date the Defendants recewea me Name in (Jul! In December 2015 sw cacAuu7auw7uJbmz><uA " -ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm the mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [21] Lacnes vs merely Dmcedum and as such cannot be used 1o remove me Decendams’ ngm o1 ownership aver pan 55 me sad Land (refer 1n ALFRED TEMPLETON A ORS v LOW VAT HOLDINGS sou END 1. ANOR (1959) 2 MLJ 202) Third uuuuon nu Defendant: were limo barred Imm enforcing his riqms according to National Land Code (Panunq ma Malacca Tilln) Ac1 19:: ans! 41 years have passed (mm the am or me Sale 3. Purchau Agreement mac 31.91197: pay The Nznanax Land Coda (me av Penang and Mellka) Acl 1es31s nn\y appvmame 1n 3 mluamcn where mare Is I competent clam o1 awnavsmp Vov me yet In be rsmstaved as a Darmnnem We undev me NI(1ona\ Land Code 1955 (“(NLC‘ Once the permznam mle 13 muaa under me NLC‘ 11 Is no Vangar Ippllcahle [:91 The Delendanls right as me benemax owner II1 equity only came 1nlo bemg on 1973 and not pivot to 01 01 1966 Therelnre, the 1963 Act does not away because 11 Is nm a oompehng cum erwvsage under me 1963 Funnennare, «max mle var me land was issued under semen as 01 me Nauonar Land Code an 2711 1972 am no Vangev part am; mxemn regmer [uu W101 regards 1:; ma rssue aVzss1unmenl_ the ma: ' eslopped «om ralsmn 11 because m me SPA. ma P1a1n1i« has aocepuea ms Defandanls‘ sw c:cMau7auw7uJbmzKuA “ -um 5.11.1 ...m.. wm be used 1: mm 1.. mum-y mm; dun-mm VI] .r1uNG pm as me nwner M the pmpeny As suen the FIaInlI7fcarIrIofm1w appvobale and :eprobaIe by dlspuhng me assIgnmenI The Plllnlllfa suI:mIssIon: Furslnuunnn nu uurnnannw lnlerul In um um porllnn M Iund vmlch w nan mglmr-a wuuld uormmn PInImIIr: reglslund Imam: on me new I-na wnmIn tho PInIncm in ma suxmquom non: nae purchase: for V-Inabln cnmla-mien Iccovdlng Io s.34n NmIeneI L-nd coda IBIS [A1 1 The I=Ie.nm Is a norm Eds buyer of me Inna because he has made a seam: and has aIsu ensured that We land Is free from any res1ncIIarI vf Interests andlov Ivee Ivarn any encumbrances and has been reglslered pe.-Iecuy and IS me IrIdele:sIbIIIty ownev/We undersacflon 340(2) Nallonal Land Codes 1965 Under the Toner: System‘ reglstratnon Is everylmng (refer Io Ihe use of ran as: v K. MARUTHAMUYHU mm 2 MLJ 7) [42] Paymem chem and am: rem (109: nm Indlcale lhanhe Davenaams Ira aI.IInmalIcaIly emmea Ia Ihe land‘ Funhermore, me contract emerea mm by the Devenaants In zms case‘ the Imenaenxs IS alleged to nnva Iawea Io oamply wnn Iha condnrnns supulaled In me contract‘ so II Is Va»: and unemnroeable (Iefet lo SAMUEL NAIK SIANG TING V PUBLIC BANK EHD [2015] 5 MLJ 1; OF FUNCA KLASIK sun END v ALI. PERSONS IN OCCUPATION or THE woonsu nous: ERECTED on A PORTION IN cacAIau7¢uw7uJb4nzI<uA 19 ‘Nata Sum mm. WW he HSQG m mm we nIVfl\ruH|y mm; dun-mm VII .nnm WMI or LAND HELD UNDER GRAN1 No. 25977 FOR LOT 1211 IN THE TOWNSHIP OFJOHOR BAHRU, JOI-IOR L Anon-IER CASE [1915] 4 ELJ :31) [431 Even u there 15 a nghvl In terms aleqmly, It us any allowed «or 4: years Smeelhls case started sInoe197B‘ thenlhe ugh! In terms ufequlky .v m exists, me nghl In aocuyy K has ended In zoos second Ounlion The Imona-nu wen um barred lvum enlorclng his right: nccording to Limllallon Act 195: aner 41 your: new passed Irom me am of me sun: 3. Purclun Aareamnnl mum 3|.u:.1an [441 The Flamlfl argued that me cause of aclvon had aecrueu emoe me 1975 had ended and was barred under Seclmn 9 oi me Lynnanon Ad 1953 (As) ‘me man or me Defendants to envovoe men nghts beyond me penod a1 12 yeavs «am the date o1 sale and purchase was entered Is cleany beyond me maxnnum mm: The allegauuns o1 fraud mum not release me Defendants (mm woreung seeuan 29 of me Lmnzauon An 1953. In this case than 15 am lama {mm me Defendants ‘s because at the Lack of delay syn cacAIau7auw7uJb4nz><uA 1° ‘Nata Sum ...m.. M“ be used m mm we nvVmruH|:I mm; dun-mm VI] nnum pm (at Amdavtt In Reply amrnred by Vaoh Hack Khoon an 07/1oI2022 (‘Defendant's Nfidavtl In Reply‘) Ab) supplementary Mfidavtt adftrmed by man Hock Khaon on 26/10I2D2Z tnetenaanrs supptemsntary Arltdavlt‘) (0) Supplementary Alfidavn IV aifinned by Yeah Hank Khoan on nsmztzozz t‘De1endant's supptementary Amuamt ll‘) Blcltnmund tam (undilpulnd mu) [6] tn the sate and Purchase Agreement dated 31 us 1973 (“SPA oime satd pomon of \and“)‘ veon Bak Scay and Wang Seoh Moey (nuw both deceased] had naught the sari portion o1landfrcm Paya Trubong Estate sun and for a sum 0! RMt,soo Full purmase pnee lurlhe sate was duly patd rn Pursuant to the Snle Ind Pumnaae Agreement dated :1 an 1978 (“SPA ofma um Prenuse‘), tne Deceased bought Ihe sum Prermsestrem Ltm Luon Toon @ Lun Buan roan amt cnang stun Wee «or a sum of Rmatmoo 00 Full purchase price was pm tn the vendor: Ind vacant possessten M the Prermsas was man to Ihe Deceased. [3] At an rnatenat tune‘ Ine Deusased and new the Executor has been paying the assessment olme Prenuses M an Ivme‘ the Deaenaants were owuvymg and In possfislon the sam Prermses smoe 31 a3 1978 Then Third question The Dmnnanus wet: time harrld from enforcing nu rignu Iccnrdlng to National Land Code (Penang and M acca Imus) Act 1961 alter 41 years have paused from Im an: Mthe sale 3. Puvchasz Agleemunl dned 31.o3.197a [44] Tne Piainm argued inai me cause 01 man had accrued since in: 1975 (Agraemanl In 1975) and had ended and was barvad wide! Suction as because ine inlsrefl Irl cne land clilmad by me Plaumfl data: back io 1978 and has been pvevenlad under the Ac: [41] The time mm: for acliun cannm be postponed in «ms case and mere IS no sand basis inai n is not subpecied la me Llmifaflon Act i953 and Natinnai Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act was Finding: 0! mn noun Whumu there exists quescian andlnl dispute ou--:1: Answer to Fun Question Thu Dolcnuxnw inmm In nu uld [an n M Inna which was not rvgiiterud would anrm mu Pluinmn ngimms in:-mi on in. and land wlinnin an Flu‘ till II can nuimquont Dom nda pumruur lot vnluabln can amnion Iccordinu Io s.:un Nllionul L-nu End: 1:55 [45] This drspute regarding ownarsmp I5 stated In the zmdnwl 01 both Dames There are contradictions m me amaavns Lflbolh parlles regarding the mleresl on Ihe land The Ddendams davrllng that he VS (H3 benefiual wmer m eqmcy ol the pan (:1 Land and Frelmses wnen me deceased lather bought the land m 31 3 1973 cxaany (his 5 a mspme as to «am [49] \n YHEIN nous TECK 5 4 ORS v. MOHD AFRJZAN AND ANOTHER APPEAL 12012} 1 CL: 49; [mm 2 MLJ 2n, the Fedem caun held‘ 147} n as me law «nano mm». Ruler mnne mgr. com 1930 may omy be rsanafl Ia flmsre -a no mspule by me pzmas as to me Ie\evanH'ac1s. av med ma awn upm scllmmslng we pbudmgs mncmea mm ma ma(erra\ me um um m shame Ame Dralm Fruuuny sen sna V Allu nmmg sen and [man a cu 741, Runs] 2 MLJ 3117 wnm In Iuuu of can an inumm um loyal am... rulnd, n will he unduirlhlu on me noun tn splillln llgal and mm! flthnninafion Oono flosn would in vfluct ho Ioglve mllngn in vlcno M on a nypomnlical ruling wnicn me calm em nnldu (so: sure mam 94 India v Manam Mukehng 1 Maven mm, on Trunlwpl No 31/0394) (omphllll lddld) [50] Based on the amdamt, wt Is olearkhallhem are facts and Vawslhil cannot be sepavaced ianms courtw delemune legal questvons umy Thus ws because the fadual dxsputelauches me enmre dalm onne Frainnw am also the ae¢ence oi the Dehanuanxs [51] ms coun agrees mm the arqumenu and reference enne caselhn me Dmnaeme have mane In me can nl snouc MOR sou sun v syn cacMau7auw7uJb4nz><uA 7? ‘Nata am.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm VI] anum wrm CAVMAN DEVELOPMENT (KEDAH) sou BHD L ans [now] I MLJ 175 [us :1, the cam named man » ‘There Is‘m:1eio{e‘ s mm. on me ssas Mltesplu m the ma progeny ms mm. was senavmy s quelmwl oHac1 n quantum of tan: a mvmved, n V: Inlppmpnlla or unlunlbln «a hive mmuma In 0 us In nmm Pmpefly sun am: v MI: Hmnmg Scln am [zone] 2 MLJ an [2008] 1 ma ms. Zarmm AAiJCA1lhe mammy dlcmun) had noted ms Enqhsh use 01 Mohamed v Mag: 3. Co (2 mm [1999] 2 All an 720 vmem ugmsn J susmw, said the Vnfiomng words. Undero MA, me man an duclde any queamn Mliw at any flag: av ms pvooeedmgs um: quzsuou rs sunsms fur deterrmnamn mom 3 can Ina! 01 me auml and sum delzmuvnalum will flnafly d:1sIvmn: ms ermre name: 1:! any mm. at mine mas." omv «A As aammmgly mt Ip| om dnlnrmnng . question mm. warm . q....us.. was [52] Theve Is nu clear separation Ior thws Calm (D de1e<mIns rwmershvp mom relemng ta smense lhmugh wnnesses A male alfidavll -s nul SUWIUEM at (713 stage. Based on the has, the Defendants have sucwssfully demcnsvalbd that the I§u: of wneahev they have beneficial Interest In eqmty on the pan of the 3-a\d land pursuant (D Ihe Sale and Pmmass Agleemem dated 31.03 1975 (“SPA of ms ssn Premise‘), me Decaased bought the sen: Prermss Mam um Loon Tocng @ Lvm Bonn Taon and Chang snm wesvma sum alRM3a,flDD oo Full purchase was was pawl lo we vendors and vacant possession ullha Premises was given to me Daoeased [53] The Learned Cuunse\ farm: P\aInIIN rslarrsd ca me use av KWAN KWOK KWONG 5 AMOR V TREMOL0 RESOURCES sou sun now] 3 ML! 731. Jeflvey Tln J (la|er FCJ). warren In no K no Sood and Khaw Lakl T . Land Law in Many: . cuu -no Communhry (r' Ed) and Iu Slnnadurii in Sale and Pam»: of Real Pmplrty in Mallyl a and luld as lnllaws: Wnerea pulcmuv undeva n:on|mdo1sa\a ma pm me mu pulchne pm Ind -mm mm pouuuon al the land umu In araaclzncy M me, me mum have um mm the purchlur Wu 1:. -unmshle went! at the mm mm "gm as agnmav mu mam In have he mu mm to ma 1...: rm-try lranslevvedio mm coma um be V051 uy veason almere dehy orlichas (Tao Kcang Soon and Khaw Lake Yee. um uw -n Mmayswa. Cans ma cmmnmy am am ax pp 2o2—2n:s) A5 a Me. mm a wile“ omerwrse pmwuea, . venom M wmmauhle pmp-my mm «mm emzumhvlncu n unwed, Immadutnfly upon - Ieemp|u1lhl(uH pwchlu prune [mm In: puvdlaier‘ In wnve-1 nu. mu benefits :11 mo. Ihu local and ber-efiuul mmenmp of he vrmmvahle pmpmy nu the purchaser mm awn, ma: vendor 45 ganged in execute mm dehver a guod and reqlslmhle memurlnduvn a1 Iransier al he -mmmme pmoeny hum snwmhramzs (against mm m. dewmam olmlam Inn puvchalsv mam‘ ‘me mm. mm nblgnlranl rm . vendor undlr . oumnzl cm the x. :11 um .. m gm . purchaser . mu ‘(Ive ham :4! emunwnnuei‘ The am: at mm m ahlaamn wshuevuwelhallfle pumrusemn nsuwslralmn aaqms. lmewnh nu exmmq encumbrances Mud! wnmd m my my fatter In: pumhzsers mm m aux mm live um: suhuquermy at man would ma me pumnmrs enjaymenl Mme r-mr (Sula Ind Punmase av nun Pmplny m mu-y-u by Van Smrudul-IV M 9156) ‘A wander ». umarn pan: x duly In dame! . nu; mm .1: mcumbuman an no» date luv eomvlemcn ma mt nu ma dale me rmnwu-:1 war lmered mm In is Ihsraforu‘ nun: pm-mu For : vendarlo dulwlm Aheland during ms mhenm per-oammmaunn-mandum sw cacAuu7auw7uJbmzKuA 1‘ «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm mat any sum enmmhlanne on lhe mm wuuld be dnschamed on me am «mm wmpl9nnn‘1$ab and Purmare of Real Pmnefly m Malaysia a| p wan [54] Thu Deiendams Irgued that \n fills case the Plalnflfl IIQM the land on mm for ms hem (beneficvm mares! m equny on tha pan av tho and may and was mrymg on the use 01 rsmsuesoms sscuamss LTD 5 ANDR V REGISTRAR OF TITLES, JONDR In ORS [1 D74]2 MLJ I5, where Ong Huck Sim FJ delwenng the magma": sand w. an Mme vnw mm m. wndms, navmg p-mm wun my mleresx .. the l:m1I|o|M lvpelllnl blvetrultaeos ma rm. no mlnvaum um um mewmm a Hand caveu an bu ‘caged’ (sea Slmuul Nllk s: g Ting v Public Bank and [2015] c MLJ 1) [55] In NORAIMI ET MOHAMED HABI v PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN PERUIMHAN snu BHD [21121] 1 ML] 152. held ma| '[13£]I'I1a paw Mme law a u dam is bman dlyhghl m mat a vendor Mu: mu mmrwd the inn uumh-an win! In . pmpmy n . am. mmu (01 me pumhwer mu a cow! av Ilwwuuld Imnow on me vendm - mnshucllve rum. holding me pmpeny our me pmbhnser and perwns denvvng Itlte ur damning me through me pmdlalarzs m Ims my [551 Based on (he has av ms case, when the lull purchale pace has been pm, xi them alrus1 171 this case? The com revenea to ma case av Euvv snu annv ABDUL RAHIM am smcm & ANOR [2o1711 ML! 4:, that decided 13) Tbsdnueaied had run, nmd mu purchase pnceinrmc umpeflylnd R2 had given mm vicanl possessmn In em and admmmer me Dmveflv "era was acknuwedgemenl and admxssmn ohms 6-:1 m ex?! P4 wsiued by R2 R2, umvuru, held me property In a have uv mnslmchue mmee and ma no me In urn or It-Insvev me pmvany lo we ippeflanl We saw w-I void .n Mme ma n2 an no rm: to run n cwle rm im mu 1: ma ml have R2 rm convnmed bteaav M mm Ind me by lrlnslamng lbs wopeny to me avvafl-an| [57] In cur use the Plamufl does not new any Interest on man pan ol the land srnca ma Deceased has runy paid me purchase pncs lar pan or me mm Sinus me Defendant: was chaHengIng on the hat that vramurr an no: new an mueraasm we and nor a subsequenl purchaser In good mm «or vnluame, Ina Deiandlnh musk prvve n dunng the lnals [El] On me pan of the Plarnm smce may had dalmed that it was sunsequem Dona M19 purchaser wrm vame and have pad the fur! purchase prim‘ rt has to rebut Delandanls' ngms an the sad part a1Larvd and the sam Premises whemenms rs oonnraryro what rs onnlamed m are Sa\e arm Purchase Agreement and must be pmved dunng the full tnal, oonsraermg somedrsputas related to the contents onne agreement nsen ml vn rm: case‘ whzmer me purmase by me Plainrm amounts to 3 Dana we purchase I: Ilsa msputed This Is : quesuon of fact that cannot be decided by mrect rudgmenl undar Draef14A Rec 2012 (relerlolhe can 0V T SIVAM A/L YHARAMALINMM (As REPREsENnnvE 1 ADMINISTRATOR son mE ESTATE OF NAGAMUTHU An. PERIASAMV. DECEASED) v PUBLIC BANK EHD (znla) 5 MLJ 111) ru cacAuu7auw7uJbmzKuA 1‘ -um. sum n-nhnrwm .. used m vs-W u. unmn.uIy mm: dun-mm VII .nuNG pm [60] Another mane s an whether the armor! of makmg a march agiunsl the Irtle re aumaem Being a prudent Investment company. «he Platmm WI” defimlely conduct a slnngem due dmgence to ensure (hit Ihmr mveslment wru not pa jeopardized py any mm Party clam! or the rraua cnrnmmed whether the land waa bought below market value and the We he\d py me marr-ha par. be defeaslme under Sermon 340 unha Nauorran Land Code 1955 W the previous owner has commuted tram Those are disputed vaua [en The Issue pr Paya Tmhong Estaxa arm the subsequent purchasers are pmy pare trustees and hormng on trust lor me Plavrmfl and whether the Defendants‘ equrtame nghl prewar! against the Plalmlffa reglslratmn cannot be delermmed by way pl amdavns as n mvorvee allegamns at rraua when Ihe Iarm was purchased at a low price [62] Based an the teens 0! true case‘ whether the P\am(IWIs net a bona We purchaser or the Plavmlf knew and recpgnrzed the Defendant: is the awnar aflhe prermsea knawn as 110144, Faya Terubong Road Mukrm 13, Ayer Mam, Pulau Pmar-p as pmven m the S&P dated 112102014 between me Plamtifl and serutred sun kind. are triaue issues [63] whetrterme \and was purchased at a very low price Is also a mable rsaue The Dflendarus arguethan cmtmemal star purchased the land lav RM27,6D0 on m was (mo user: per square veet). Senurad purchased the wand m 1597 for RM5oo,nuo ac (RML241 per square feet) But the Plamtm pulchased the land fur RM24,D57‘76s 42 (RM60 per square lee!) on :12 10 2014 However. bases on me ‘nuns zuksrrarr pmdan mmk nana ru cacAuu7auw7uJt>4ttzKaA 2’ -we sanaw n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. mrmu-y MW: dun-mm VI] muue Wm lanai!’ m we smmunmng area‘ the value persquirs feat rs Immst 4 times oi whit me Ptamm pm lcrlhc purchase ollhe Land Amwerlo second Gluosllan Second Question ‘rm D-iumnnu w-u mm nan-d Iron: Inlorclng M: riqhb Iccording lo Lmm-non Act 1253 mar 41 ynn hm paint! from me an: al mu Silo I. Punch Agmmum aqua :u.n3.n1a [64] Thrs Conn agrees mm the argument by me Plalmifllhat the law Is clear on me right to sue on a comma seems an ms breach The Defendants allege that they onry knew abaulthe breach by Paya Trubong Esta|e when he renewed the name to am: iron: the Fmnllff [as] II n subrnmed by me P\amXIfl mu: me cause 0! actvon Imse mm the mam av cnmlact Ind nullrum (ha am nluecunan Tm; pnnupxes wu d-omen m the case av NASRI v MESAN (1 I71 )1 ML! :1, wher: the coun held mac ‘hi Bond 04 fans V Glynn Irvme 5 Ca‘ Vm=uun| Durvedm dewnbed ‘uause :11 mm. n max mum nukes mm pnwbla Nam Mm mm possum In amen «mum on . mnuu1 Is ws brand: In mm mm M swan banded an . wmm: loans: on on an em mm smxany, me nghl In we an . nomad mamas on wls much an m. an uhcfluns Vmmd-d on wnlran:| Iher-fore Mme Iumlmm Dream‘ sw cacAuu7auw7uJbmz><uA " -um smm ...m.mm be used m van, .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (see also MORAINI ET MOHAMED HADI v PEMBANGUNAN TANAM mu PERUIIAHAN sun BHD [Hill] 4 Iau 15:; [as] in this case when did the cause olacllon tack pla::e”ls it at lnelrme oi receiving Ihe noiioe fmm Ihe Plarmrm The Plarnim through its solicitor issued nolloe In quit dated 2311 201810 the new Deceased, demanding wean: poeassrun. [67] In omumu & ANOR V MEK(Iv72)1 ML! 158 when ong CJ Slld - , smmee or llmllahun wmcn hat the enlcrwmerll ale right by mien are rules cl pmeedum only see 24 H:Isbury's Laws of Engllnd -are Eu)p 131 A ngm wnrm becomes lmenfomeahle merely by reason oi lrmliarron does nollpsolacw penen or vanlsh mm min air see Holman v Cowcnev (lawn wuz ans where n was nela mar nnnaugn under s 13(5) cl lne Llmllaucn Act 1939. znears M mortgage interest oucsianurng lar more man slx years nre lrrecuverible by action‘ me mongngors were only enlilled we me equlluble remedy or redempixm pmmea inn: lney paid III arrears mnrlglga rnleren, wneiner s1alule-barred or no: ll, as in that can equneue rights are run parlsh by reaean nl llmlmlinrl‘ can rnie eanie aelenee be set up here lo deny lne nghls M a beneficial owner to be grnrnea his claim In me legal title?" [55] Essen an the cases above‘ whether the Delenuarns are an equrlable beneficial ownenmne part more Land and Premises, this cnurt finds that it is a question oi laci that will determine (he legal queslrorl v1 whether Irnrnamn applrea ms 1: because me «me Ilrmt cannot be dalermmed based on me raw alone rn ems case, smca mere 1: a mixing o1 the two mar cannot be separated quesnon aHac1 ano law will only be resolved mruugn a mu rnav twhsiherlhe Plarnm can use me wrmanan ‘aw: in set asrde me whale defence) Ans-rerto Third auesnon nro Dnfundanh wan fiml o-mo vrorn omorcxng hi: lights Icculding to Nltlonnl Land coon (Fonlnq Ind M: an m ) Act 1953 arm 41 ynn havl pulod fvom me am am. sale a. Purclllu Agmmom «am 31.01.1978 [as] The Learned Cuunse\ 1or1ne uetenoanc submil rnar The Nauonal Land Code |Fenang A Malaooa Tmes) «ass (‘the 1563 Act‘) was ereaxeu 1o vnlmduoe a system o1 regrsrrauon male to and re convening me deeds system prevrouyy praouseo In mm are smes lo the Torrens system provided 111 me Nanor1a¥Lam1 code 1965 wmn rne oornrng onne 1963 m. an we-exrsmg Interests suuarsnng 1mmed1.ale\y oemre 01.01.1966 In an Ianoe rn me states were exungursneu rm] An lnlenm Reglslev wls mainlimad lo regrs1er all haldmgs rn ene snare once a we or interest has been proved under me was Act, «he quamy o1rnoe1eaarmmy vs ccnferred In (ha case 171‘ my (me or mleresl which his no1 been duly examined punuant 1o me relevant pmvlsrcns of me 1963 Act. the quahty oi rnaetaaszmmy only anacnes nner rne exwy of an cacMau7¢uw7uJo4nz><uA 30 -we s.n.r ...n.mn re used m mm r.. onmnmly mums m.n.n VI] .mm mm the Walnnfllhrnugh as square: wasued Nance m cm: was 28 H 2015 «o the now Deceased. demanding vacanl nasessmn m vn Encmsure 45, me Pramw suggested 3 points or law and/or pvelmunaly Issue to be de|em\Ined by me Honourable Court. namew (n) ‘nu nuund-nu Inluul ln mo in portion 0! land wmcn w nut nu nun would dalull mu Pl|lntlH'| ngimrna Emulsion m llnd who In mm P mm ma Iublcquanl ban: fidl purcn : fur vlluuhlo wnlldunlion Icnordlng m 5.340 N-uonnl Luna cm: was; (up The Dclondlnts werelima hlrred lrom enlwcing his rigms according no Limitation Act 155: alter 41 years have pained Irom mo data M en. sun 1. Furcllasu Mraement men 31.n3.1s1a;am.1 (c) The Dulnndumn mminu mind from Infurclng M: ugmn Icconilng Ia Nnllannl Luna cod. (Pa lug Ind M -cu mu) Act was -M741 y n mu [3 .1 From (h- an or an sun. a Purchln qncmont «ma :n.n:.1a7a. 12 yeammm D1 01 1955 nrwumn such caveat or clavm made under me 1963 Am (See LAND LAW IN MALAYSIA (GAS: AND COMMENTARY) mlnn EDITION) n1 1 The Defendants subvmtlhal ms nqhlasme beneficial vwner in equity anly came me being an 1975 and not pnorlo m 01 1995. rhererme, me 1963 An does not apply because u Is nm 5 mmpeung claim envisage under me 1963 Furmemmre, rmal «me for me and was wssued under secnnn as anne National Land Code an 27 1: tan and no longer part of me Interim register In any emu, The Pnamm s stopped «mm usmg me ummatlon Act or me 1953 Act to extinguish me Plavrmfl neneman mterat m me Frames and Forum aILam1 as deemed (m DTI-OMAN a ANOR (sum) rrz) Vn me nrgumenis. KM Flannml deavly mlsed me mane ov hme mun anu pllced the human of grow on me Defcndlnls Ind appropriate «or me Devemanns to be gwen the apporluruty la bring wnnasses In prove mu: um alarm .5 wnmn ma lime nmn Since there are uuspum as to «ad and law, it Is not lppmpnule In dispose mm mm suit by point or Law nnd/or pmfimmary vssue V3] In the own S1alemenh71ClamIs at Paragraph 4, me Plalrmfl cleariy stated that “ .Devendan sedann mcnmap ates man Iersabnt Ilnpa kebenaran“ [14] I! we look at me illlament oi dalms In paragraph 41, Illegnion ni 'Defendan rerus manghum harlanah Iersehul sebagar perrcarobaw Is a «name rssue The Defendants have beneficial rmerrm In aquny on me pan of me sam land and wherrrer may are erespassers as suggested by the Plarnm should be uerarmrnea m a mu «ran as] The Pramufl submmed mar may are not prwy to the sm dated 31.031911; Eut ma Defendanls argues mat the me they omamed «ram ma purchasw aims Land were deleciwe fmmlhe heginmng because are spa beiween Faya Trubong Estate Sdn arm Ind corrunarrra: Slat and mereansr me sun belween Continental Slar San am and Semlrad Sdn Ehd were VDOI1 SD Irullo due in the (mud oommmed by them As a vesum an rrurrsoar rnarmmems m Manon in ma Lana wara also mu rrauu is a lllahla Value and mum! be decided based on affidavwls conclusion rm] It would rm be In ma Interest or Name lhal me [me Islue 01 acmmvenry be msragarded by this Conn and In the axwcwse at mus dnicmlnn to consldev rm: application by ma Plarrrmnms coun mus! not my cunsidav wnemar ma applmmrr would cause vmuatma lo the Davendnnu, but was decrda vmmar n r: max «mm Court to do an under Order 14I0rdar 3:; a1 lha R06 2012 This coun unly decides on mra appucarran based on ma affldavlls Ind Irgumenfl that me balm the own‘ without censraerrrrg amar factors rm It xsfrile law as wellmenne appenare com wm none wum me exemse M dlscveilun of me man noun in rekallon lo proeeuurex andlar interlocutory maners (see ECM Lnm Inveltmunl Bank Bhd v. Foo A] Mann 4. Or! (201311 LNS 99; 1701:] 3 MLJ :5; In msmussmg me eppeew mm oos1s, Lem Guest m RATNAM V. CUIIIARASAMY A ANOR (195411 LNS 2:1; [1:55] I MLJ 223 amongst others held that -me nnne-me. upon much a cam mu m m rmuewmg Ihe amem nxercrsed By . Iuwlvcoml In wen gamed Yhem rn . pvulumpllml um um judge has Ilfihfly anvclad ms msueuen (cranes Oaenmn 5 Ca ». Ju7mswn|1B42]AC 1C1l)nerLordWngMaI may Ther.ounvnHnm1nledere umess n s cbafly samea mz| me aseremn has been exsrusad an a Menu Drmmnle and mm me new exevasefl m e mnltary way av um mew nu Man a mnscamage ev Juslme (Evin: V E-mam man AC 413 Lemphuu eaeear an In ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING sou sun v MAJLIS PERUEATAN muvsu 5 ANOR [ma] 3 cu 15:‘ we Lomshnp Azahar Mohamed CJ (Malaya) m oencuvrmg wmu me majonly declsmn 91 me Feasts! Com m ASIA PACIFIC mans: LEARNING sun am: (supnl referred to me Federal cemrs decwswon KEMPADANG snu sun arm, me Court held amongst olhevs Ihal ‘The pliierll posman I! he ‘aw Mid: mm in appea\ we: not VII agalnstz demsmn m an Jmmdmenl applrcahan made m me mm M e mi and‘ lurmev, such e dedslnvl don run (many msnase eme nqms m we names ~ [79] In amwu CAFTIAL sun END V GRANTS vsmuns sou EHD mu] MLl|J 457. me Cnurl held that sw cacAuu7¢uw7uJbmzKuA B we sew n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG wrm 1231 Based on lh-:9 vgamns ms use vs /m| smlibla \a amass wilh 0rdar14A reads Iogethetwim Older 33 Rule 2 mm noc 2012 betzuse Ilseve ave quesmnsonan and Lawma|nequ:relummargun=n1s in mm None max 5 ans v MOHD Armzm aw Husmw a. ANOR APPEAL [21:42] 1 C|.JA9.me Fan ucaufllald 151 n ws (me In mm 144 am: my umy he mauled In wnnm no an-pm ray in: Dunn: us In In: vanmm mm or mm the cum, upun nnmnung un. phldlnwi mncmm mm nnn mulcnll fans are no: In dlnoule (Dunn Prowfly sun sna v Ana: Howw sun and, may Where me muss emu; an mmwmn mun Legal um vaxsad, -mm be unaesu-able Vm me mun m sum the new and haul aemnmuuon cm In do 547, wuum .n elect In to grva mlmgl In view an an . hypmfleflul n.nng, mm. mu mun mu run do‘ no] Vn TAN KHENG KEAT 5 oils v SHIFTV TECHNOLOGY son am) [2023] ML.|ll11B€, the court held that “[451 The nnnuvbi apmm m use muumon aroma: as ROC 2912 have been exulalned .n me we m Newacnn son an v sn Nam San EM [1991] 3 cu 2781, mm} 3 MLA 474 (so) mm: mm Suprurrla Cum mgomusly Ipphad «n. pmvapla man wls um drwm m the use at Ewvmv mama. I Am. (1952) 2 as me and an an p475 M m-man-nam M Jemun s-nnn an Aaom-on “We wuule mlnlvulmem My mm a say 2 n wlhbln mm... .- . pm cl wmwncn, fidaudld M unewly - Dumg m be decline at ungman Ind ma Imlinbga mama he liken cllhue hcumns - [:1] As such, the answer to quesmms one‘ two and three news the noun are In one negatwe sm cacAuu'muw7uJwnzKuA 14 mm. smnw ...n.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he paw-y mm: mmn wa mum pm Pronauncun-M 1321 As such, me answers |n quesuuns one, Iwo and three beiove «ms com are in me negaave, (herefme me mallet cannot be mspusea M on point nf Vaw or on preummary Issues. [:3] Bned on ma -rgumenls piasamsd to the Court me: me guiding prmovvbs‘ «ms coun decvdes mu Enuloourn As to be dismissed wnn oasis m use causa :gd.. AIIZAN MD. ARSNAD Juulcm commissioner Hlgll Conn M Mllnyn at Pulnu Plnlnq Duladz 12.12. 2023 Cnmgnl for um PI:'nIlH: Kann mm A; Chlng, Lee Kar Khsng Tainan Prusgrava 8‘ Matthews Peguambela a Peguamcala Tmgkal 1.2 Lsbun Fanfal moo Pulau Pmang sw cacAuu7auw7uJbmz><uA as -m smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Cou lorlhe gun Jeyasmgam Emaswngam, Lawvance Damian Bnudvme Lawrence Damwan Eaudvlfle Tainan Ghazw & Lwm 9m Flnar, mm MWE Na a. Lawn Farquhar 1a2oo Georgmewn Penang Counnl for Iha Aggrleved Pug Tan Keng sun Tatum Teaw Saw 5 Assoclalas 37, Jalsn Kflan Geergetmm «moo Pulau Pmang L-glul-nous rmmu ta: 1 Court at Judlrzlure Act 1564 2 Rubs ofcourl 2n12 3. Lvmlallon Ad 1953 4 Nauonal Lana Code (Fenang and Malacca mes) Act 1963 5 Nations! Land Code 1955 rnhrnd tn: 1. KEMPADANG BERSATU sou sun v. PERKAVUAN oxs No 2 sun BHD [2019] 4 cu 131 2 GOVERNMENT or THE SYATE or SARAWAK & ANOR v CHOMG CHIENG JEN [2016] MLJU 113 sw cacAIau7auw7uJbmz><uA as W; Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm 3 IDEAL PRINCIPLES SDN BNDVCENTRAL SPECTRUM (M) sDN BHD (2023) MLJU 2511 A one SIANG PNENG v MILLENNIUM MALL sDN BHD A ORS [2021] MLJU 1019 5 sINoN EIN KARNEN. THE DECEASED) a. ANDR [2017] I MLJ A3 6 NORAINI at MOHAMED HADI v PEMEANGUNAN TANAR DAN PERUMAHAN SDN BHD [2021] 4 MLJ 152 7 ALFRED TEMPLETON & oRs V Low VAT HOLDINGS sDN END 5 ANDR (1939; 2 MLJ M2 5 TEN REEV K. MARUTI-IAIvIuTI-Iu [I977]: MLJ 7 9 sAMuEL NAIK SIANG TING v PUBLIC BANK BHD [2015] s MLJ 1; or I>uNcA KLASIK SDN am: v ALL I=ERsoNs IN occuPATIoN or THE wocIDEN HOUSE ERECTED ON A PORTION or LAND HELD UNDER GRANT No. 26971 FOR LOT 427| IN THE TowNsnIP or JOHOR aAHRu. JOHOR LI. ANDTHER cAsE (199514 ELJ 337 I0 THEIR HUNG TECK A 4 on v. MOHD AFRIzAN AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2012] 1CLJ 494201212 ML! 299 11 snout; MGR SDN END v DAVNAN DEVELOPMENT (KEDAN) SDN BHD& oRs [zone] 9 MLJ I75 [TAB E] 12 KWAN xwox KWONG A ANOR v TRENOLO RESOURCES sou sun [zoom 3 MLJ 7:1 13 TEMENGGONG sEcuRITIEs LTD ll ANOR V REGISTRAR or TITLES. .IoHoR & ons (197412 MLJ 45 14 Samuel Nzik siang Ting v Public sank Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ I sw c.mamuwmm.z»<.A 31 mm Sum M... WW be used M mm u. DIWIMHIY mm; “Mm. VII .;Ima WMI 15 T sIvAN AIL THARAIAALINGAM [As REPRESENTATIVE I ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE or NAGAMUTHU AIL FERIASANIV. DECEASED) v PUBLIC BANK arm Izma) 5 MLJ 711 16 OTHNIAN a. ANOR v MEK (1s72)2 MLJ Isa 17. ECM Libra lnvnlmenl Bank and v. Foo Ai Mum L on [2013] I LNS 99 [2013] 3 ML! 35 15 RATNAM v. cuIvIARAsANIv A ANOR [I954] I LNS 237 (196511 MLJ 226 I9 AsIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING sou EHD v NIA.ILIs PERUBATAN IIIALAVSIA a. ANOR [2020] 3 CLJ I53 20 BINWU CAPTIAL sun BHD v GRANTS VENTURE snu END [2023] MLJU 451 21 TAN KHENG KEAT a. 0R: v SNIFTY TEcNNoLoGv son Ban [2023] MLJU 1756 sw cacAIao7auw7uJbmzKuA as W; Sum IHIWDIY M“ be HSQG M mm I. nflmruflly mm; mm. VII .mm mm Fulimlnary iuuu [10] Thele Is a quesnan that womd like ll) be addressed vegarding the Issue 01 whether [ms Court's order can be appealed and ms daemon oi this court IS fmak not interlocutory and does amount in an appeal ID the Conn 0! Appeal [I1] n vs a semen pvmcipla cl Vaw mu my aamsmns at a final nmuve are appezlable ms pnncwple has been vepaalsdly sum by me Faderzl Com m KEMFADANG aznsnu SDN arm v. PERKAVUAN ens no 2 sun BMD mm 4 cu 131. new that ‘[211 Sermon 3 5 mm . Ipacofic pmvmw hmmng appeax. Seaman : .. ms wmlvprelnlnn woman :11 m. cu n meaty mm mm . dlnaxmn m lav ma Purnuse mm cm [251 on m Inluunhflon 01 mo mm "dscv out In ml-uni par-Ifirlpn In 1 3 as dividnd ink: Iwn pm-. Yhu mu nlll .. r-.- “dtc-tion“ in tin [um nl “|udnnnm. umnnu or nldlf‘ mm mm. wt pmmes an emnwnal deimmun ul me wom declsson by lmlmg mums mm: selolmmgs mciuded mm In nmevwovds‘ me comepl Mflsmsm m not zxpllmed bul me obg:r:1smnlfnI\ unaeum wold Iva Mn! [29] m. ucomi pm at me M:-grnpln mum mt than mm 01 m.m. an nvl lnclum "my mlmn mm u. an (aunt at . um .. mating nllny nun 1:! mm mm. can my! finally a pal: my. right: M In p-Irfi '2 u .. um: can Ihu ncovm pm a. ‘nurhd in .. : :7, Anl Mum which cam! mm man an :1 July 199: Blood on (M nid Dvvvvlu-an,mwhIk}nn:1una ruling a. band plays: mm min In new 1: wlumlv man u. order I: . mllng wilhln um cum-xi nl . .n.m must a . m-I u. uiunnco on honing Ind u..m.. may ll luuud up. vs: cuurwl .1 mu m.: H! mm...‘ mwny. nu mum N cacAIau7auw7uJbmz><uA 5 um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm mun not um an arm at dilvonml um llml mm. of mu pans... (Emphni: mm) [12] Based on me links M nms case, we aecusmn by ems Cuurl unaer Order 14A Is nm a firm daemon The rights 5! the parties are not an-My determined, because ma pumes have In prouea wwh ma mm and no Vongar geq a summary judgment without 3 MI hennng Thu parties nave me oppnmmlly to prayer“ evmenoe mmugh n MI nearing based on me disputed -sum [13] In GOVERNMENT OF ‘(HE STATE OF SARAWAK J. ANOR v CHONG OHIENG JEN [2016] MLJU I13. the Com held that 1551 Thus wm lbs We-mad may ammmu um Iwe|\Inu' :la\m m N: ermrely ma ddmnmnmg qugshan 11) In hvauv 0? me ruwudml and quei1mns12L1.'|Dam(4|m muurome appeuancs, Her hdyxmp mm m fnv.1HnIlly dalemllnsd me ermm muse M me maitsr pulsuanl Io Ovdev14A rule 42;‘ exmlty n mlundsd by on mspomenl H-1 queshun 41; bu-n -Mwlrad m Vnvuuv M an lppllllrllx Iionu mm queshon (2), (nu ma 4:; cm: wdgmem wuuld um» n mm mm: me respovldam [37] To nmt uuw nu cm (0 proeoed nu ma! dnplh hlvma bun firmly amassed of Imflur Ordev ma Is no open me «mum iov mu Ipplnzhom no he made pweoewvsfl and by mrtamem Techmmfly. n n ml! open in IN Iupumamin make armmev men auplnznun n we was to rerun the use back to cm High Cmm lor mm [as] cmmnug mm decssm under may w\ n afina\ deusmn m mm n mu, demvmnes use rights of me mm and mueiovs apveialfla In un- coun Ind Wlenlllfly in ma mam cm wnh leave. any Iumar .pp..x upon mnm: dnlnvmmnlum undlv om: «M wm vunm any ma mm syn cacAuu7auw7uJbmzKuA 5 mm Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-max anposm at me can We do not Imnk we shmld tel . nannewus Dleeedml by aflowlrm InaI am a delannlnahon undev 0Me¢14A“1EmphuI| added) [14] In Inn: Issue, Ina eoun Io-ma In-I semen ea aI Ina Coun aI Judicature Act 1964 (“cm”) wls naIevunI In refer ta A5 a duea consequence of me amendment‘ an appeal lgalnsl Iha dlsrmslal at any applucanon (M a summary Iudgmam under of me ROC 2oI2 Ii no Iungsr be allowed Hare I! Sechun 65 M Ina CJA1964 war the amendment In 202 . In Na appeal shaIl he bmughno the Court ampmn IH any mne Vnllnwmg cayes Is) {BI Icy (a: In whom . Nlqh cum flbmluld Iny nppuuuon lor n Iumnury I.n:.m.n:.- ('1 Int [15] In IDEAL PRINCIPLES sun EHD V CENTRAL SPECTRUM (M SDN 3ND (20231 MLJIJ 25:1‘ the coun held Inst. 1321 THIICEIM nn Isa been m|6emunde«sI.ImmI|l7Ia PIIIMIV Inland: m argue mm Iarmon sauna) any ngplnn In dIImInl I11 Iurmulv Iudglvunl apphrahovls mm under cm: I: At lhu uppIIulIon II -me nursulnl In Ovdev ma‘ Ine PI-mum-II acc::rdIngIy argue \>I.I1IhapIvvI5InlI In semun sauna; dos nu awry «me Sum :uvIhnrwHI be used m mm .. nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm VII .nunc v-mm gm} n the msonmg nu: nwon ssmqap an mw mum In new In applbmlmm nude uncle! timer 1:, men dumwssd ol apphcahuni for sumrmry mdgnmnl under one: ma omeua. omeraa arm was was an sub;-cl £0 appeal my Thir Court Is oo the um mm a mm the mlecman at the Ruin Oammmee ma Iwmlme appmam. nfseaIon681‘H(d)Iumsm|ssas otnny Ippmzlmn rm . summlty judgment was On1er14,\mr would u ihuuld um um man can m um. um -ume-mm aumm; m flew ov me nnwa 91 me phvlu ‘undvv may 14' n In: ma Iuh-ncmn sauna), sumlvuly judqrmm mm in bi ummooa an no Indude nu sumnuvv mflgrnenlapphL::1rvrIi mm me \/Imus pvwlduvzl Mes cl Ina nuns. of Count znvz (421 n .3 nemm-4.“ granted mm 1» mm cwwmilances‘ a aexemmanm of quamns av um or eannmdnm M pmvcsmns m . sum. or dame: m 2 mnlvaa or document pursuanmz Ord:r1M mm Rum nflcnun 2012 may bung a mum In In am In man a case me Vasmg puny mm not be pmmbilsd [mm bvmgmg An -ppm lo the Cowl «Mane-I The naommn of mm In Ippwurli wmoum-pm wm. Ihu ummuu behind nu (nzducnm nhuhaecmn ssmqa)‘ 1:7 and m o1Ii1eCour\\x m Jndvcamm M11964 [431 M m the pmgm nu. ma asmmx M on :2: mm Nmnue cl Auglbclmzn rm nmmnvy judgment under om: ma dun nu -mu nu ma am--1 o« In: FIImMl‘I mun Tm drlrmsul at Ihu Fllmaffl Notice 91 Aughcanon For sumlvury pudgnunl my Order 14A dun um Ivwfl Ill jndgmuvll amaved m (mum at u. Dufmdarll ms Conn u lhevvfovv 94 m- mm mm the present case «mu mmery wmlm mpenmve awunged at mu-ma by me .numumu. ofme new pnllgmph (4) m wnucnan ssm of In vlml Conn: mm-arm An1964 Hemrflnnh, nn lppell man an sm cacAuu7auw7u:bmzKuA ‘ mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm bmuumlolhe COIAII Mfiuynli However mai it me aeciwrlu be man: try me Conn 94 meal - [191 ma calm agrees with me decision or IDEAL PRINCIPLES sou am: (Iup )ana In lma ens. me Opinion olthls caurl is anneal, men ems appeal can be struck oul wrmoul locking ul the lull relsons oi mus mun However. If me COW‘ of Appeal nalas ins oppome opinion, the oaurvs muanlng in allowing me appliealion la set aslda ma nrdev given by me Laamaa Maglslrme under Order ‘MA 010:: R00 2DV2l new explamea for ma purpose or helnng the marlls al llus Iweli [17] The courl also wants la emphasise lhal In our case oi KEMPADANG SATU SDN BHD (supra). it s not slaled whether the decision musl be made before during or alter Ihe lnal, This Cmlrl is aims View that in the course ci a lnal lrldudes all stages olllre lnai and vmal IS mare important is "whether it will dispose ul Ihe Plaintiffs nghls in lull or the lmal decision has been made” llmls decision is nut included in me pnnuple oilhe case KEMPADANG SATU sou BHD (SUPRA). men ms appeal should be dismissed wllhmll hearing the merits oi nus appeal nu Luv [19] in this rudgmenl, me relevant provlslonsvmlch will be diswssed are as lollows A Omar lui cuflha R00 2012 I ualarnwuiron cl uuasmzvll 0! law nv construction 10 an r ll IN cacAlau7¢uw7uJbmzKuA 9 -ma s.n.i ...m.mm be flied M mm .. nflninaiily MIN: flan-mm VI] .mm mm m m Cowl -nay, wan me nppvnznann ul . party or m N: own mmlorv, dehemune lny quesmn a law in mmnmm at any document ansmn .n any cause annmrmnyszage am: pruceaimgswhete wnnpearsm me com mm, 1:; such quesmm ws suwable for deianmnahun wnnom me mu «nan av lhe swan. me my sum daevmwullou ml flnaly delemune me emure mm or mdmsr of any clam: m mm mmxn 12: on sum dehemllnatlurl the Courl may msnuss me mm: or nuuer or nuke um oMevnumgmenus\\|hInkspuI1 43; The Conn snau um determine anyquaflwn undev Ims Omar unless me names hm: hm nn upponumly cl being mm on nu queshon (4; The musdlumn of ms Cowl unou mus Omev may he exmtwsed by n Rngmnr (5)No1h\ng n ma onmsruu hum the owner: We caun urIdarOruar 19‘ nn. 13 av any mmpmyxmn. M mm Rules 2 Mannev In mum appmamns nnaec rule 1 my be mane An nppnmun under Me 4 may he made by a mlwa of ipvhcawn an m1tw\|hs(and\ng one 32‘ ml: 1, may be made many nu ma mime af any mtafloqnory applculmn m cm Caun 5 Omer33 smez wilhe R06 2912 4 2 Wm: of n-I of uunaunl av mm The Conn mny man my quukon at x mum oflncl mum pamy cum Ind pnmym my Ind wnamav mm by me pleadmgs M alherwsse‘ In be ma unfair‘ an M aflevlhe (ml M me muse or muRa1.and may we aneamns u in me mnnnnr -n wmm It-e woman or same mu he muse no nr-my m n ulna or unnm sm cacnuuvauwvuabmzxu nu mm. s.nn n-nhnrwm n. med w my n. nnnmun mm: mmn wa mum v-max

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-310-10/2020

PEMOHON SYARIKAT PENGELUAR AIR SUNGAI SELANGOR SDN BHD RESPONDEN MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA

The Applicant filed an application for Leave to commence judicial review(JR) - an order directing the Minister of Finance to exercise the powers under sections 135 and/or 127(3A) of the Income Tax Act 1967 to set aside or exempt the impugned assessment - Application by the Proposed Intervener(DGIR) under Order 53 rule 8(1) of the ROC 2012 to inervene in the JR Proceeding - Whether the DGIR is an interested party and has a direct interest in the JR and a proper person to be included as a Proposed Intervener in the JR proceeding.

22/12/2023

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bd0257f3-ff49-40e1-bb62-2a9f5c0eb88d&Inline=true

22/12/2023 09:18:03 WA-25-310-10/2020 Kand. 77 S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 81cCvUn/4UC7YiqfXA64jQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—25—31D—1D/2020 Kand. 77 22/12/2023 29:12-ox mum MANKAMAH nusvsn muvn nl KUALA Luupusz ruuw wuuuu mxssxumgu KIJALA Luupun, MALAYSIA KBAMAGIAN KuAsu<uAsA sous) rsmnonoruu szuugg xznmmnu Mu wgzgm JQIWZII D.-mm uenrsvs sualu Devmomnzn yang Ieuh mm kapadi Respanden menurm Seksyen 135 am. sum" «mm Akxa cum Pendapnlnn um ynng maingr masmg henankh 29 9 ma dan 14 v 2u20; Dan Dahm mm Amun 5: x;..a.m<aaa;r- Mamcamah 2012 Anlnrl smanoxr PENGELIJAR AIR suns» ssumsun sun ann Pemohnn n... MENYERI xswmsm pumsu x...»...:... u... KETIJA newsman rum mum NEGEKI Final-h Vulg Dlcad ng m Judgmom lnlrodu 1 ms is an apphca|IorI lor leave by me Anphranl on 19 I0 2020 to commence Judlcwal review proceedmg (Enclosure 1) under Order 53 onne Rules oi Cour! 20120100) seeknngmlev alia, me lollowmg orders » mums sm a1ccvum4uc7vwuV>mMm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (a) An order to Instruct the Respondent to sea asrde or exempt |he lmand Revenue Boards (mar decrsron under seamen 135 end Seclion 12713A)oHhe Income Tax Am 1967 (ITA) regardrng me names at addinonal assessmem (reruns JA) (or me years or assssmenl (us) 2015‘ 2016. 2017 end 2015 ardng wan a name 0! assessment (Form .1) our VA 2019 (or the sum of RM653.655,9I2.19 on the grounds that me said Forms JA and Form .1 are deemed magi!‘ void, un\awM or execuled In excess or aulhonly. Tne IRE's decision was eueged man in be rrrenoner, unreasename, and Veadmg to e demen unne Appllcanfs Vegxlimala m<paL"a\I0nS. (:7) A oecraranon that me Respnndem is bound by and shau adhere to 3612' n 34(2}(b) M the ITA wmch deariy provides that Ihe debt wmch is reasonably eshmaled in HIV clrcumsflnees of the case to be vrecoverahle IS daducixma. [cl A Declarauon lhalthe Respondent 15 bound by and snau adnere lo secuon 41:1] 0! me ITA end we Appncanrs Vain paymenl InIeres| should be assessed under semen 4(c) dune ITA: and (dl A neclarauan that there 15 no Vega! end fauna! basrs lcr me said Forms JA and Form J to be raised against me AppHcan( when ma Apphcanls deducnron under specme prwrsmn ofdoubflm dams nursuannd Seclion 34l2)(b)n1 the ITA should be allowed. 1 1 Any furlher proceedings mcmdmg me enforcement and Blind aflhe sand Forms JA and Form J be suyed unm the lull and «new derernunauan a! me applnm n to quasn the sad Forms JA and Form J: 1 2 Any necessary and consequenuel dnreclions and erders be gwen: and 1.3 Any lurlher renet wmch «me Hnnuuratfle ccun deems fit and proper vueznul ru a1r:cvun14uc7vruVxAMD “Nana sarm nmhnrwm .. med w my r... annmuu mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum WM 22. 23. 24 25 25 in IIAIS lsupra), lne Mallis eandaraya snan Alam (MESA) nad deeided ro aHoca|e land lor ine purpose aissrling up a Muslirri punal ground lugainsl lne plan, certain duarler at neipnoouring resldanls opposed lo lrie plan and «led me in al review applicariori lo anallenge MESA: deeision. in lne ineaniirrie, MAI5 med an appliealiori |o mlervsne in ma judicial review appliealiori. However, both ol lrie High Court and Court pl Appeal neld lhal [here was no rieeessily lar lvws io imervene. Based on «lie above, I Vlew llial llie Federal Cuun's deci on in dismissing MAlS‘s appeal was eorreaas the proposed land liad nel been omelully designaled or gezeued as a Muslim ounal ground, since lne land nad not been gazened. MA|5’s role and posilien in overseeing lne adminisiraliuri o1 Islam in selanpor, particularly in lne care and rnanagernenl or Muslim ourial grpund is ya! lo exiei Henoe. MAIS nad no ngnl ever irialler pertaining lo lne said proposed land, ai lnal iunclure ln eorilrasnolne preserilappliealiori, lhe Applicanl seek lor an order of mandamus, againsl me Minisler ol Finanee lo direcl lne DGIR io wilndraw or uacale lne Nolioes wliicn nae already been issued by lne DGlR agalrlsl1heAppllcarll unlike in uuls (supra), where MAIS inleresl on me land is yel lo oryslalized, in lliis appllcaflorl, me rlaiioes nas already been Issued and ilierelore, I arn olvie vlzw Iha| me order sougril by me Applicanl will nave direel elleel upon lhe Noliees lnal have been issued prevmusly in me slam case, deepile llie iudieial review was brought apainsl ine Mi sler or Finanee. but I nnd lhe sublecl niauer i e are notices, wnicn lne Appliearil seek Ia rescind, oorries under lrie are and adrninislialion or me Proposed lnlervener as may were issued py lne Fruposed lrilervener The rationale hehlrld the issuance of Ihe Sald Nmlcas can snlaly be elucidated oy the new as me party responsible lor raising lne said assessrnenis Furlner. I find lhal me relevant mrrespuriderices and meeting pnor ID are said assessmenls were all belweerl lrie Applicant and IRB. Tnis clearly snows lna diraal lnuolvenieril lrpm IRS in me Applieanrs case par-nails IN B1:Cv\Jnl4UE7VlflVXA6‘|D “None s.r.i mnlhnrwlll be in... e vufli i... arrinniu Mlhln dnuuvlml Vfl aFluNfl wrul 27 28. 29 30. Tms coun rs ol the mew mat the raus or me case ndgemer wwlh all me renevam documems are within me knowledge olme Proposed lntervenar. Tnemore, the Proposed mnewener should be allowed in mlervane m Dlderll) explain |oIhIs Handurame Cuun with regards as me Names 1: Is not dwspuled that “Ms jud\c|a\ review proceedmq ws Inmaled on the bass met me Appncam alleged me Respondem has lafled rd respond xd me Apphcanfs lens! to give mslructlan lo we DGIR under secuan 135 at me ITA to exempt me «axes raised under semen I27(3A)a1me VTA. It \s dear man muse statements clawmed by me Apphcam stem imm me drssauslactinn dime Applicant on the assessment raised by me DGIR. Therelore, me Proposed lnlervener has me direct vnleresl m me suhjecl mazcer at we yudrcxar revwew moeeedmg. Tm Cnurfs mew has been refleded m the case 0! as am Propnrty nouuopmm Sdn Bhd v. Monlorl Kownngm musysi-, llahkamah Tinggl Malay: Kuala Lumpuv Formohonan Slmlkall Kthlklmlll No:- WA-25-333-11/2020 where Manana Vahya J (HOW JCA) held as Fallows‘- 115] Luliv bcmunq can mus keg Flmormn d. dalim permahonan kebenzrzn unluk semakan usnaxmn d. damn kes mv nyavz menunwkkan parkau yang hendak mpohon man Pamohon kepada Responden adumh barkanan um-swans Takswan bagl (ahun zuu dam we yang mbzmqknlun dan/avau mkehmlkzn mun Ptncelah Yang Dmsdangkan [15] RehI—reM yang mvahun men Pemohon fir dalam Deunehanan vsmakan kahnkumun In ydgn adnlah Imluk m-ngarwmkan -zau menyeeunum mm mm: Takslvan Tambahzn yang dwkzluilkarv Merv Fenoelah Yang Drcadangkan Mahkamah memyux kapada perenggan 5 Ahdavfl Sukongan Pemohon yang memm Raswndwv menwunakan kualznya an hawah sexsyen 135 can saxsyun mm) ACF unmk menuenemkan |<eDu|usan wewanan Vang Dwcadanfikan ma mInge\uar\<.an NM: 11 mm dun mm ylng kavamuln)/S bsnumlah mm am 104 so benankh 21 no zmz my Kesemu: ponik In-pulllulall yam: hlndak dimjnk up-as nupmm... mu.» bcrkllhn dnngm Ilndak-n dun Iwplnnnn Pnnnnlih Vnng Din:-danukall in ms Pomohan. mu.» unullnlas klfldlkpunnn up-nusan Pemxl-Ih Vang Dlnadannkan mnnixdi Isa: pormohonan Pcmohon untuk m-“mum Rlwomnn mtnanuvuknn luuunyu an bawih SIksye<\185 din S-|uyvnI11(JA]ADF. v... 11 ul 11 em a1:cvun14uc7vwuV>mM:D «mm. smm ...m.rym .. y... w my r... mmuny mm: dnuumnl y. mum v-max [191 Femuhun menyauun ma ktperluan an mmn Seksyen 135 AC? unmk Raspondun mlndapalkan nasmal Penuelzh Vang D-caasngvan xeamuun Puncun vanq Dxcadznukan mam mnnyimaw ksdndukan Mams Agama Islam Semngor dw damn Kai Mews Agamz Semngor Lsupm} yang memuluskan nmw. mam Again: lshm Selanoor bukinlah plhlk yang memvunym kepentmgzn semra hngwng dalam kgpulusan yang d|Duz| oleh Mum: Snndsmya snan Nam belknlun huh umuk penalnual-A kubuv Dam nrang mushm my Eemeza dungan {akva kes Permhnn dw sml bahawa kuwwsarv kspulusan yang hendak drkzfltpwkzn adakah kevmusan Fememh Vnng mcaaangun ynng n.ang.mm.n rvolIi—nul\i rr 2014 GM zme nmmn Mahxamah wmoersemu dengan mqahan Pencdah Yang Dlcadangkan bahawa wmn kapulunn Rslpanflen yang mnak an-mlk man Pumohcn a. cam pemnhonan Iemakan kehaldman mu Pumohon dv pen-mggan 9 mam Sokaflgatmya nnnya manyalakan anggapannya bahnwn kepuluun yang dvmaksudkan Idahh danpada anggapan an/mu .nu=4.n Pnmohun oanam kegagman Responaen member: miklum bales mznggap sehagzn menmak pvvmhunan Pnmohnn dw b-wnh saumn «:5 can/ilau penuncullxan dv bawnh Seksyen 127(3):) ACP my Ferkara mama yang pm dmnkhevmkan mun hnmve Memln akzn muuksavukan kuasanya :2. bawnh Szksyen 121(;wAcP xenemn dahum flan mum-annya memuna mm bum blcaranya :1: Damn Seskyen 135 AC? unluk memben zip:-spa arahan kepada Kelua Pengarah umuk mlaksanakan Mahkamnh Km puny. Iumwl Fun: In vmg an ngkln bum-k unluk In-mbon pengenasan kemnn runonon mempersaalkan keesahan din munuablruu |wnulunn- Ipululln ym. dlhun mn vunmm v-nu Ducmtlnqkan no ans Pemohon. [251 Pemexan Vang Dmaflangkzn jugs mempemmun mm." Fumuhon mum unukan kehaklman .m yang mana kemakuuasan Pemomn ubmamya ada\ah\erhaaapNa(|:-Non: Tlknnn Tumbshan yangamemman men Pencemu Vang Dmadangkan llihkimlh .n. xmpumpu Puwallh Vang Dlcldlngk mun plhuk ylnu pun! auuum plhlk an panngm Iwal Dennohanln umuk kubunann supaya llku-hku an undam- undlnn ylnu uiknmukaknn olnh Pnmohnn dipalulllnlukan mg... lehlh Inuit flan mmnn. [27] pmmn Vurw Dlcn wk... mm plhuk my Iuibllk boa: mambo: n p..-waun u pad: laahk man an borhnbnnq dunuan uknlrumukn .. n... ma m-not----k-n man plhak-puluklnupi mm dwatrmmhamu u.nu.....n .......u .......m.¢ kn;-nmlnn yum mu nan m1|l.Y|:da .p...p. yang nolnn dlcadangkan bqluwl mg... munjndiknn p u Pnnulln mg Dlcn nukln ai dnlnm arm M; m. man uanlalzu am mlnylblbkan kuasa Responder: al buwm Snklyun us dmlnuu scIuynn1m3AyM:P um. axmnun‘ (emphasxs added) u...mm sm m=cm.u4ucmvxm.u «mm. Snr1|\nuuhnrwH\I>e U... w my me mmu-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 31 32 33. 34 35. Coming oadt to the tects tn the tnstant case, it rs my view that any order or tudgmenl which tater made by “us Courl, wut drrecttytmpact and enact the Proposed tntervener as the rehet sought ere egantst on the assessments ratsed by the Proposed Intervener. The ran be seen trorn the !e|\e‘Vs sought by the Apphcant tn thetr Nottoe of Apptrcehon (Enctosure IL vmereoy the Apphoent sought an ovdev to exempt the tax assessed agetnst the Apphcant and an order for a stay at pmoeedtng agatnst the Proposed tnterveners dectston HI torn. ot the Notices I| ts to be noted that the core tssue and dtssattetachon of the Apphoent revolves around the Nottpes desptle the Applicanfs dental and planned that the hrdictel revtew concerns on the laflure ot the Respondent to revert the Appltcanrs wetter Tneretore, il ts clear that the Proposed Intervener wiH be dtreptty aflemed wtth the outwme/dentstort of this court because the exentptron sought by the Apphcanl ts oesed lmm tne assessments and those assessments are the aux Issue and dteeettstectten of the Apphoent in thts epphpattoh It the court enowed the Appltcanrs judt:\a\ tut/tow and stay appheauon, the Proposed tnterveners interest wtu be aflected as such deptston mu rnour tosses an pan 0f the Proposed tntervener and the sovernrneht where the Proposed tntervener mu not be apte to eoueet the taxes trorn the taxpayer In the trtstanl case, the Apphcanl Is seekmg tor an exemptton trom the Respondent on the noltoes ratsed by the Proposed tntervener. Thus‘ wnneut the nalices retsed by the Proposed lnlervervevt there will oe he exemption appltcahort made by the Appnoant to the Respondent. rhts court ts otthe vvewlhal tl ts unfatrfor the Ayp|it:an| 00 make an appltcauort agatrtsl the Respondent In dired the Proposed lrttervenar to exemal the assessments raised by the Prnposrad Inlervener agamst the Appltcam, but at the same Mme, denymg the Pwposed Vnlerveners ngh| in delertce tls assessments. conehnton so Prentrsed on the alovesatd reasons. I am of the vtsw that the Proposed Intervenerhes prwen that the Proposed Intervener has a Page ll :21 I6 rn B1:Cv\JrtlAUE7VtuVXAM|D «we. s.n.t nuvthnrwm .. tr... e may r... oflmruflly sun. dnuuvtml vn murta Wm! duea Inleresl m this ]ud>C\’a7 review appnaauan and mu be subsvannauy awecxsa by me Cuun‘s deusum Tharelore, me Pmpossd Intervene! Is me pmper pman to intervene IVI «ms prooeedmg :7. As such. lhe Proposed Ynlarvenefs appncanon m Emflosuw 2: vs aflowed with 50515 m the cause Dated 21 I Decemhar 2023 Ahmad Kama! hm Md Shamd Judge Hrgh cmm Kuala Lumpur n... 1; 1:! u m m=cm..uucmvxm.u «mm. smm ...n.mn .. U... m may he mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Counsel: For the Applicant. Encwk s. Saravina Kumar Teluan Rash Daman Saravana Pannersmp Aras 16, Menara I DuIama$. salans Dulamas. No 1‘ .la\an Dutamas 1‘ 50480 Kuala Lumpur. [Rm Tuan — RDS/SKS/2020/02§1(WH|] For the Respondent. SFC Encik Sabri Olhman Jahalan Peguam Negara Eahaglan Guaman No 45, Persvarin Perdana Fresml A, 52:00 PulraJaya Forms Proposed Inlervenev Enclk Ahmad lsyak Mam Hassan |Enc1k Mohamad Hafidz Ahmad 5 Encik Monamaa Asyralzakana mm mm; Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negen Ma|ays.a Jabalan Undang-Undang, Menala Has\|,Aras16. Pamaran Rumba Permal, Cynsr a. saooo Cybenaya, sawangur Darul Ehsan. Due u 5! ;s m n1:cvun14uc7wuVxAMu «mm. saw ...m.mm a. U... w my me mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max 2. In essence‘ this app cation for leave to oonnnenoe judiual review seeks, various relreis, Including an order dlracmlg the Respondent to exercise the powers under sectten 1:5 andlur Sacuorl l27(3A) oi tne ITA to set aside or exempl tne impugned essssments 3 me Director General or Inland Revertua (DGIRJ (Propond lnurvonor) via a Notice oi Application dated ta112t12o (Enclosure 21) applied under order 53 rule 6(1) or the R0010 intervene in mi: in al revletw application. 4. Aiter the neanng, I allowed tne Proposed lnlerveners application in Enclusura 2t l will now deltneeie tne grounds tor my judgment. tauckground incl: 5 Tne background has 11! lnrs case are exlvacled lmrn tne statement wrtn sullahle modification 5. The Applicant is a company lncarporahd In Malaysia wrtn an address at Level 1, Alf Selangur Headquarters, Jalarl Panlal Eallam. 59200 Kuala Lurnpur 5 2, vide a Novalton Agreement dated 32 2005 between the Stale oi Government of Selangar and me Applicant. the Applicant was grimad tne ngnt to supply and sell treated water In Syarlkal Eekalan Air Selangor sdn Bhd (suns). 5 3 The chmnology or undisputed key events. 15 as (allows. - ' Date Event Following an audit conducted on me Applicant, tne IRE rnlorrned the Applicant en lls audit ‘finding: lor YA‘; 2015-2019, stating that the ‘'9 202° ‘iolIowtng- a) The deducnon a1 impairmenl losses was disallowed under section 35 o11he|TA: and ‘ van a 9! li ru atncvtln/4uc7VluVXAMlD «um. s.n.t nuvlhnrwlll .. tr... u may r... oflmnullly rm. m.n.n vn .nnna vtmxl b]The rate payment tnterest was not declared uttdet Seclinn 4(t:) ol the JTA The Apphcanlt thmugh rte lax agent, utsegreea wtth the tRa's aectston that disattorw the dedncttan at the trnpetrment tosses on the t V tottawtng Dams. e) the Appttcsnt had taken Iegat amron lo vecnvar the debts due Mam SYABAS es 1 indtcated by the IRB, and at the existence an agreement between the SYABAS and Appltcartl that the payment at tnvetees uccmtrng lo hnancret cenetattrty and cash flow does nut mean that rt was a delerred payment anangement. 22.9.2020 Furthermore, rt the late payment tntetest were ‘ tecetvee by the Appttcant, such Income woute l he uearty assessed under sectton 41:) at the IYA. V In reply to the Appttcenrs tetter dalsd 1 22 9 2020, the ma maintained ils postlton on t the tssue at the deduchhlltly at the irnpatnnent ‘ tosses Howevsrt the ma suhsequenlly ‘clatmed that the late payment inIeres1 was tot be messed unttersec n4(a)oHhe ITA. 1 l 23.9.2020 we e letter, the Appt can|’s lax agent ctanttea ‘ the following matters: a The outstandmg amount due lmm 25.9 mm SVAEAS was iwewverable and hence the App|Ican| had \o make the trnpstrntent losses In tts aocaum. rhese tosses were deducttble pursuant to Sec?-tort 34(2)») at the rm entt F4 v.....nu IN a1:K:»4Jn/AUCYVMVXAQIAD “Nair s.n.t narthnrwm .. med e may t... ntnnt-y mt. mmn VI nrtutta Wm! b. The late payment interest would be siiiiisct In lax under $ec1ion my in tns ITA, if it were received IRE suhsequemly issued the Forms JA for VA: 30.9.2020 2015. 2016. 2017. 2018 and Farm J ior VA 2019 The Applicanl submilled a request to the Respondent. seeking the DG|R's directions iunstei sectinn 135 aim/oi an appiicauun pursiisnt ta Section I2‘/(3A) at rm to get exemption lur the lax raised arbilranly iinaei me said Foriris JA aria FDVIIIJ 9 in 2020 5.4. As tiie Responusni failed Ia respond the Applicant‘: isqusst In ISSUE a direction under Seclian 135 or the ITA or grant an exemphun under Section 127(C|A) of the same AC1, which resuliina in arbflraniy |ix assessment via Form: JA and Form J, me Appiissiit is ming iris present isppiicsiim to salaguard KS isgai iignzs. rhe Respondents iiuri-response is considered as a retention to DI: Auplicanfs request under Set-.1ion 135 M the ITA aridlor lax exsmpiion under SeC1l0h |27(3A) at me same AC! Sllbrllillinnl M an iuiruu s Tris Proposed lrllsrvanav submI|s tnsi may serve as Iha Head 0! IRS‘ a siatumry body esiariiisrisd uiiasr tne Inland Revenue Board I)! Malaysia Act 1995 (A51 533) (IRBA) wiieieby the rnain iurictiori isvotvss aiiauria tnii collection oi uimi taxes, specmcsiiy inoonis lax. tortne Government The power and jurisdiction alme Proposed iiiieiverier are esiahiishstt under VRBA and HA. 7 Therefore, the Putalive Respondent has a direct interest in lhis pmoesitiiig in aetsriiiining the issues In qiiesticiii by the Applicant whicn win cause niusnsi and xignincsiit implicahun lo the isw Il'I iaxaiiun, collection allax and pubhc interest. »...sim- IN B1:Cv\Jnl4UCTViflVXA6‘lD «wit. s.n.i nuvihnrwm be UIQG s may i. nflmruflly MVMI dnuuviml Vfl nFiuNa Wm! e Trle Proposed lntervener ls an approprlale party wrxll a direct rnleresl and al lrre same Llnle allecled by me declslan ohms man 9 According in me Pmpased lnlerverler. the lnlervener appllcallpn srlauld be allowed based drr (allowing reasons: - at T0 Eisslsl lhls Honourable Court in oblalrllng a clear wrllexll lads and inlorrnarlorr based on me documents wnlcrl involved and enable EH 0! the llrlruas In ques|iorI to be daclded aowrdlnglyl pl To assIs| lnls Honourable Cmm ln elucidating and lnoorpdraurrg lrle relevant laws lrlcludirlg pun pol llnllled in mi Real Propeny Gains Tax Act and plrrer relevant leglslalrdn «or comprehensive rrlordugrr cnnslflerallonl c) It ls lair and approprlale lor ule Applicanrs appllealrorl lor ludlclal review id be decided with me suprrlrssrerr ironl lrle Proposed lnlerverlare during ole leave slap»: a) Tne rssues arise can be easily dererrrllrred wllh lne involvement 01 me Proposed Inlervener as all me documents related are between me Appllcarrl and the Prupused lrllerverler: el ll me DGIR ls not allowed to intervene in Ihl: proceeding, me DGIR will be prejudiced as it IS unable to delerld lls assessment; 0 Trla Proposed lnlervener would be at a gram asslslarlce (0 ins calm in oornprerrendrng line «am; and pemnerll laws. elven llral any declslon made by we Honourable calm will have an lnlpael an taxahorl laws. 10. The Appllcanr on lrle other nand apposed me Proposed lnlerverlers appllcallorr on me following gmunds‘ - a Trle Fmposed lnlervener has rm basis lo intervene me Appllcarrl s ludlclal review applicaliorl as ll failed |o MN and lesl :71 being a proper person urlder order 53 rule 5(1|oHhe ROC and :5 applied by Ihe Federal Conn case pl Majlls Again: Islam Sllarluor v. Bong clroon Chum A or: lance] 6 ML] 3n7; lznon] 2 MLRA 453; [mow] ls cu 405. »...rma r~ B1:Cv\Jnl4UE7VlflV>MMlD “Nana s.n.l nuvlhnrwlll a. med la my r... pflmrrnflly ml. dnumlnrrl Vfl nFluNG Wm! p The provrsrons oisecnrons 127(3A) and 135 onne ‘TA clesriy conlerred power screwy on me Respondenl and not me Fropused lniervoner n Yhe currenquorcroi review appncairon at rrarm rs soieryio levlew irre dacisian—makirig prooess at me Pespondeni under Sechon 135 and/or sreciion 12713Ainr1Ihe ITA. d, The Proposed iniervener was nevar involved in me decision- making process under me Said seoirons 135 andlov I27(3A) oi me in and me Proposed inienrener cannu| ciaim enuiierneni |o mvolvemoni as siren provision is not siipulaiad in me ITA. e. The aclions and conduct 0! lhe Proposed lnlerverier are under the ppm or me Respcndenl As such, ine Proposed Inieivener Is not at the liberty to Inlervene in the decision- making prurzss or decisions made by the Respondent I A proper scnnrny oi oom Secimns 135 and 127(3A) or me ITA, rr is evrderri me: me drscreuon is ves|ed solely In me Mimsler and nor irre Pmvoszd iniervener The exercise of flowers under both prowsrons is vested exousiveiy ic me Resporrdeni and um extended in me Proposed inrervener. g ii me Parhameril rnienoed no confer pciwev |o the Proposed lrilervaner. ii wopio hlveexplicmy done so, akin ro Section 124 oi lhe ITA whereby rne power was conierreo io me Proposed iruervener Io eonrpourm oivences and abale or rerrni penaiires rr Despfla ine Proposed Inlervener being an arm oflhe execulrve responsible ior tax on oehsrv or me Govemmenl, me Proposed inrervener orriy an best rras an mmreci interest in me present applicahun at nand whale in «em me Proposed Iniervenor use no say and influence or irivohlemenl in me decrsron-rnakrng prooess oi irre Respondent The applicaiian 01 [he Proposed Inlerverier should not be allowed by this Honourable Conn as V! wauid open the llaodgaies var other pubhc emrrormes In ques1i0n the decisions made oyine Mrnrsierdesprrsnrre M msterhaving been awarded {he sale disorellon IO make decisions by the Parliamerii. >21: r .r is rn a1r:cvun14ucWruVxAMiu “None smni mmhnrwm rs. med m my r... pnmnmy mm: dnuumni vn mum Wm! The Law 11 Order 53 rule 5(1) cf the ROC reads as Iouows - --a. om-r amen. win: mly be mm (0. 5:. r. I) m upbnme hearmg clan ipphcabon Vurnmcxm revwew ny amen whu desins In be huvd in opposluon In tho apvninnnben mu mum wtheJudqa in bi . pmplr plnon In Do nuns may M hoard nalwvmsllndlng mzl n. has no! been served wvlh me am Dapers m we mailer‘ {emphasxs added) 92 n we to be nmed |h2II Omar 53 rule 6 or me ROE comers upnn the court a we uvscveubn to hear a party or person m upposiliun to an apphcallan var JR as Vang as me laflowmg mud: ans have been Mlrlled . u me pwsbn des-res Ia be heard m upposmon to me appncauan; ana u that person appears m me ]udge lo be a proper person lo be heard, notwumnandmg mat he has nm been servad wum me cause papers m me maner 13 \n Ma] - Aglml I In 5 mpg: v. song Boon Chuln A on [2009] 6 Mu M7 [anus] 2 MLRA 453; [man] 6 cu M15 me Feaerar coun lam dawn me |est ll) be sausnea by a person seeking la mlervene and be added as a pany -n JR pvocaedmgs 1251 I am mhe vln-wlhn mmmu phuu ‘pvvplrpclsourfl In u 5: rl(1)o4lM we mu be ms nu nhrrinn to pcnonl wim - w: u mlnnst”. m mus regard me (:14 for mm: as a varly In ,..mmn mmew was eonsmsrsa by Ina Noun M mm... RV RIM omeersemoe. ax par1eMLMoan R V nemomwsemca, ex pane Ka\Iy[19M)3 NI an «as. n was cone:-ma m um cm mu In indinrl intnul. mu on am pm aflhu Summary 0! sun was not sumcltnl. to lusllfy numr. I am of me View an name an weuld -nply In In -nv-II-M In In um-nl cuu Unlike me position um" ux c u Prvudun Rubs [crux cm rlahl onuy parnnn to la r. us In uppa-uuow In our 0 53 v!(1)v1IM Rnc Ls anal: ad by Ihn nquimmu of mu pnrson mug : 'wvIur Mum‘. Rule so 11 1 07 me cm slates any wsbn may annly to me emenee Dr mlka m. I al 1: sm m=cm..uucmv>uu.u mm. smm nmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum we repmserwalmn ac me hearmg Mme muscle! laws»! There \s msmam . s\gml\unl quamanm under our o 53 v an ; of me RHC wan wmch mmca|es some level M mares: ‘ (emphasis addad) 1A In lhe case 4:! Mann Agam: slam Selangur (supra), me Fedeml cam was al the View that the phrase “pmper persan“ snpuuansa In Order 53 Rule 8(1|oHhe ROG must be read as naramng In persons with a duecl mural, u 15 significant man ma pany not having any mrect News! will not be allowed to be , ed as a pany, pafliuukirly in judicial review proceedmgs 15 In Adv-nco synargy capnau Sdn Bhd s. Th: Mlnluorof Finance Malaysia 3. Ann! [mt] I MLRA471 201115 MLJ 313; 1101117 CL] 551, me Court at Apnea! had adopted me legs! pnnnple m me can omams Aanma lllnm sanangor (sunny and new as mews.- I211 In ms mslanl apnea!‘ so lung as |he wage has demonslraned a Dmver axemsu uldwcrulmn uvvdw Or¢ar5Cl me am, on Ihe hams ama «am and cucumswnces pmaumg m each pamcmav case‘ and eslabhshed ,uma.an pnnapxas ms mun womd sa How m amaamng an In appauaza mwva-wee [251 u s smgulnfly sgnmaam man we sacam Raiponflcnt was an ruuplunt mm mar appmval whlch Is now Minn chlllulgnd by wly auuauzm mm. ma Sncond Rupondnnl na dhuclly lnvohtud In ms mar appmac a 4 will bu manly allected nyms onlmme of tho Amncnau nviuw Drbcnldlnul n. sasanu rs undunl many was a fllvenl lnlensl n. ma nulcoml on A56‘! apnlucanon br Iuvo :1 ma mnnhom Iupo, and st: ought to be aaaaa aa a pnny to tho smaaamgx. In ma wnhxl mm... [usliu amu ma a a ma ma nncessary Inclusion av ma sawna Rlipundem as a any to unvul Imirowa Iinnun a Iubpnmlln-rdlnnlly awasuna Ihclr cares: (I am gvale m my wsamsa brumav Eyed Ahmad He\my mn Syad Ahmad in! ms Input) om. sa Ruin my all Inlnfnrl bu v-mm lo Illnwme Second naspommmo lpnoalu wow party to nppaaa A50‘: appncamon It In: leave sum We are nl me vwew maum karma mg» Cowl wage has can-:ec1ly exummd (ha dlscmbun under Older 53 Rm: 5 m We are merelore unabie In suslam me subrmasmn mama luv Ase’ (emphasis added) 13 The term ‘direct Interest‘ wmch was relerred w Mains Agama l:l.Im Selangor (supra) was exmamed by me engusn House 01 Lurds m R V‘ RIM Offlcar Survicl Ix pl I Muldoon: R V. Rlni Officer Page 9 at :5 sm atscmmaucwwubmulu “Nana am nmhnrwm a. med w my a. nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII .mm v-max Servicn. ox pan» Knlly [I996] 3 Au ER 495 [p.153] m melouawmg |erms “That a Derson rs dinclly llfuclofl by mnnnnna connalns um n 5 ntkclnd wllhoul lhc mhrvtnllon cl lny nnmmauu Yin Sucuury M sum would eamintybc amend by! and u mny In uld man he would mevlubly or nlcualnly an nmnnd. But would In my apimon, be only lndunnliy . can, by mason nf . coll: ran ohlluiflun In any subsidy m the ma: uumnmy: (emphasis added) The declslon own com 17. The rssue (or determIna|Iun bevore «ma ocurl revolves around wnemer ma Pmposed rnxerveners Is a vruper person ta be r-eam‘ as defined m Order 53 rule an) of me ROC Proper person and Direct Imerem 15 mar perusmg all the relevant cause papers, I am of the view met me Proposed Vnlervener IS an m|eres|ed party wrrrcn has a meet InIeres| -n «ma appricaunn and Iheralore a proper neraon u: be vnduded as a Fmposea Imervenenn (his ;ud|c|a| revrew pmoeedmg 19 The Proposed Inlarvanev, bemg he DGIR serves as the hsad ul a slamlary body mandated to ccflecl and admmnsler dxrea \axes In Malsysxa under Semen 134 of |he ITA. The DGIR holds a dwect mlsvesl rn «ms procaedmg and play cmua\ rule rn delermmmg Ihe Issues rawsed by the Anpllllanl Any subsequent declsmn made some slgmficarmy Impact Aaxaman ‘aw. collecluon 01 tax, and me pubhc mares! 20. II rs not mspuled max me Federa\ Cowl m the case amanis Agama lalnm 5- Inga! (Mus) (supra) ma ne| aHow MAIS m be rncluuad as an mlerverver, However‘ \ find man the decision or MAIS rnusc be viewed on us own tau and can be dusungulshed. u... In M 16 r~ a1:cvum4uc7VxuV>mM:D “Nair sarm nmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... nrW\rrnU|:I mm: dnuumrrl vu mum war

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

N-09(H)-225-06/2022

PERAYU KALIYA PERUMAL A/L PONNUSAMY RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan - Telah dengan sengaja menyebabkan cedera parah - Seksyen 173(a), (b) dan (c) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Akta 593) - Procedure shall be observed by Magistrates in summary trials – Isu samada sabitan terhadap Perayu adalah sah dan selamat memandangkan terdapat beberapa kecacatan semasa prosiding pengakuan salah dirakamkan di hadapan Majistret - Dua nota keterangan yang berbeza pada tarikh yang sama - Perayu telah mengubah pendiriannya untuk mengaku salah - Pengakuan salah oleh Perayu di peringkat terkemudian telah dibuat dengan bersyarat tanpa mengetahui kesan dan akibat pengakuan salahnya - Setelah Perayu mengetahui dan menyedari di saat itu bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan adalah wajib dan akan pasti membawanya ke penjara, Perayu dengan spontan dan terang membuat pengakuan tidak bersalah - Majistret sepatutnya membenarkan sahaja Perayu menarik balik pengakuan salahnya itu sebelum sabitan dan hukuman direkodkan - Pengakuan salah sebegini rupa tidak boleh lagi disifatkan sebagai diberikan tanpa apa - apa syarat - Seksyen 60 Akta Kehakiman 1964 – Mahkamah memerintahkan supaya kes dikembalikan ke Mahkamah Majistret untuk dibicarakan semula.

22/12/2023

YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Dato' Ahmad Zaidi Bin IbrahimYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=90a14ade-3722-4eeb-b637-c827566e6fc7&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO : N-09(H)-225-06/2022 ANTARA KALIYA PERUMAL A/L PONNUSAMY - PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA - RESPONDEN (Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Seremban, Negeri Sembilan Rayuan Jenayah No.: NA-41H-120-08/2020) Antara Kaliya Perumal a/I Ponnusamy - Perayu Dan Pendakwa Raya - Responden 22/12/2023 11:01:59 N-09(H)-225-06/2022 Kand. 26 S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 KORAM: VAZEER ALAM BIN MYDIN MEERA, HMR AHMAD ZAIDI BIN IBRAHIM, HMR AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, HMR PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Pendakwaan terhadap Perayu bermula di Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan atas kesalahan di bawah seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan. Perayu telah mengaku salah dan dihukum pemenjaraan selama enam (6) bulan dari tarikh ditangkap (15/3/2020). [2] Pada 17/3/2020, Perayu telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi Seremban terhadap sabitan dan hukuman tersebut tersebut. Pada 17/2/2022, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah menolak rayuan Perayu dan mengekalkan keputusan Mahkamah Majistret atas alasan Perayu memahami pertuduhan dan pengakuan dibuat tanpa paksaan dan tanpa sebarang syarat. [3] Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut, maka pada 3/6/2022, Perayu telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan (Kandungan 47) ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap terhadap sabitan dan hukuman yang dikenakan terhadap Perayu. S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] Sewajarnya diperjelaskan bahawa Notis Rayuan ini difailkan setelah Perayu memperolehi kebenaran daripada Mahkamah Rayuan pada 25/5/2022 di atas persoalan undang-undang yang dibangkitkan oleh beliau sepertimana berikut: (a) Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dari segi undang - undang untuk menelitikan kegagalan Tuan Majistret untuk memberikan pilihan kepada Tertuduh selaras dengan seksyen 173(a) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (Akta 593); (b) Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dari segi undang-undang untuk mengambil kira isu mengenai pengakuan tanpa bersyarat ("plea without qualification'') di mana Tertuduh enggan mengaku salah sekiranya ada hukuman penjara wajib; dan (c) Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dari segi undang-undang untuk menelitikan sama ada Tuan Majistret telah memenuhi dan/atau melepaskan tugas statutori ("discharge statutory duty'') dalam memastikan ("ascertain'') pengakuan salah. Pertuduhan [5] Pertuduhan terhadap Perayu adalah seperti berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 14/3/2020 jam lebih kurang 5.00 petang, bertempat di hadapan rumah No. 77 Taman Seri Gelugor, di dalam Daerah Kuala Pilah, di dalam Negeri Sembilan telah dengan sengaja S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 menyebabkan cedera parah terhadap kakak kamu nama Suppulatchumee a/p Ponnusamy , KPT: 430117-01-5266, dengan menggunakan suatu alat yang jika digunakan sebagai senjata untuk melakukan kesalahan yang mungkin menyebabkan kematian iaitu sebatang kayu sehingga menyebabkan kecederaan pada bahagian jari manis sebelah tangan kiri. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan.” Kronologi Peristiwa Secara Ringkas [6] Bagi memahami perjalanan prosiding yang berlaku di Mahkamah Majistret ini, maka adalah penting bagi kami membentangkan dua (2) Nota Keterangan yang terdapat di dalam Kandungan 12 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 3 m/s sepertimana berikut: (i) Nota Keterangan bertarikh 17/3/2020 (m/s 1 - 7); dan (ii) Nota Keterangan Tambahan bertarikh 17/3/2020 (m/s 8 - 13) Nota Keterangan Bertarikh 17/3/2020. • Perayu tidak diwakili peguam; • Pada 17/3/2020, pertuduhan telah dibacakan dan diterangkan oleh jurubahasa kepada Perayu di dalam Bahasa Tamil; S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 • Perayu faham dan mengaku bersalah; • Mahkamah bertanya kepada Perayu samada Perayu faham kesan dan akibat pengakuan salah beliau; • Perayu mengakui faham; • Mahkamah bertanya kepada Perayu samada Perayu faham dan tahu bahawa setelah mengaku salah, Perayu akan disabitkan dengan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan; • Perayu mengakui faham; • Mahkamah bertanya kepada Perayu samada Perayu tahu atau tidak bahawa jika disabitkan di bawah seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan, hukuman pemenjaraan boleh sampai sehingga tujuh (7) tahun dan boleh juga dikenakan denda; • Perayu mengakui faham; • Mahkamah memperjelaskan kepada Perayu bahawa setelah Perayu faham dan mengaku salah, maka tidak akan ada perbicaraan dan pihak pendakwaan tidak akan memanggil seorang saksi pun untuk membuktikan pertuduhan jenayah ke atas Perayu; • Perayu mengakui tahu; S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 • Mahkamah bertanya kepada Perayu samada Perayu tahu atau tidak bahawa memandangkan Perayu telah mengaku salah, mahkamah boleh terus menjatuhkan hukuman ke atas Perayu di atas pengakuan yang di buat bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan sepertimana yang telah dibacakan kepada Perayu sebentar tadi; • Perayu mengakui tahu; • Mahkamah bertanya kepada Perayu samada Perayu tahu atau tidak bahawa pengakuan salah Perayu diambil dan direkodkan, dan jika Perayu ingin membuat rayuan, maka rayuan yang boleh diambil kira hanyalah terhadap hukuman sahaja dan bukannya terhadap sabitan atas kesalahan jenayah ini; • Perayu mengakui tahu; • Mahkamah bertanya kepada Perayu samada Perayu masih mahu lagi mengaku salah; • Perayu menjawab bahawa beliau masih mahu mengaku salah; • Mahkamah memutuskan berpuashati bahawa Perayu telah pun memahami kesan dan akibat pengakuan salahnya serta masih lagi mengekalkan pengakuan salahnya di atas pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas dirinya; S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 • Timbalan Pendakwa Raya memohon kepada mahkamah untuk dibacakan fakta kes kepada Perayu; • Jurubahasa membaca dan menerangkan fakta kes kepada Perayu di dalam Bahasa Tamil; • Perayu mengakui faham dan mengakui fakta kes sebagai benar dan tiada bantahan; • Fakta kes ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P1; • Timbalan Pendakwa Raya memohon kepada mahkamah untuk mengemukakan dokumen - dokumen; • Jurubahasa menjelaskan kepada Perayu kesemua dokumen - dokumen tersebut kepada Perayu; • Perayu mengaku memahami dan menyatakan tiada untuk kesemua dokumen - dokumen tersebut ditandakan; • Mahkamah menandakan dokumen - dokumen tersebut; • Perayu membuat mitigasinya dengan mengatakan bahawa beliau seorang penoreh getah dengan pendapatan sebanyak RM50 seminggu. Beliau mempunyai cucu dan memohon denda yang ringan; • Timbalan Pendakwa Raya memohon hukuman yang setimpal; dan S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 • Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap Perayu. Nota Keterangan Tambahan Bertarikh 17/3/2020. • Perayu tidak diwakili peguam; • Pada 17/3/2020, pertuduhan telah dibacakan dan diterangkan oleh Jurubahasa kepada Perayu di dalam Bahasa Tamil; • Perayu faham dan mengaku bersalah atas pertuduhan. Perayu faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan; • Timbalan Pendakwa Raya memohon kepada mahkamah untuk dibacakan fakta kes kepada Perayu; • Jurubahasa membaca dan menerangkan fakta kes kepada Perayu di dalam Bahasa Tamil; • Perayu mengakui fakta kes; • Fakta kes ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P1; • Timbalan Pendakwa Raya mengemukakan dokumen - dokumen untuk ditandakan; • Jurubahasa menjelaskan kepada Perayu kesemua dokumen - dokumen tersebut kepada Perayu; S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 • Perayu mengaku kesemua dokumen - dokumen tersebut; • Mahkamah menandakan dokumen - dokumen tersebut; • Perayu membuat mitigasinya dengan mengatakan bahawa beliau seorang penoreh getah dengan pendapatan RM50 seminggu. Beliau menanggung tiga (3) orang cucu. Beliau berusia 67 tahun dan memohon denda yang ringan; • Timbalan Pendakwa Raya memohon hukuman yang setimpal dan berbentuk pengajaran; • Mahkamah memberitahu Perayu untuk seksyen 325 Kanun Keseksaan, hukuman pemenjaraan boleh sampai 7 tahun dan boleh juga dikenakan denda. Hukuman pemenjaraan adalah wajib; • Jurubahasa menerangkan semula kepada Perayu bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan adalah wajib; • Perayu mengatakan bahawa beliau tidak mengaku salah; • Mahkamah bertanyakan kepada Perayu samada beliau hendak mengaku salah atau tidak; • Jurubahasa menyatakan bahawa bila beliau menerangkan kepada Perayu bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan adalah wajib, maka Perayu pun tidak mahu mengaku salah; S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 • Mahkamah bertanya kenapa Perayu samada beliau hendak mengaku salah atau tidak; • Jurubahasa bertanya semula kepada Perayu samada beliau hendak mengaku salah atau tidak. Perayu menjawab tidak mengaku salah; • Mahkamah mengatakan kepada Perayu “Habis yang ini semua kamu cakap tadi ni apa? Mengaku ke tak buat? betul ke atau tidak betul? So, kamu mengaku ke atau tak mengaku?" (Perayu menjawab sendiri dalam Bahasa Malaysia); • Perayu mengatakan semuanya betul dan beliau mengaku kesemuanya (Perayu menjawab sendiri dalam Bahasa Malaysia); • Mahkamah mengatakan bahawa beliau tidak memaksa Perayu untuk mengaku; • Perayu menjawab bahawa beliau mengaku; • Mahkamah bertanya kepada Perayu samada mengaku salah atau tidak; • Perayu menjawab bahawa beliau mengaku; S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 • Mahkamah bertanya sekali lagi kepada Perayu samada mengaku salah atau tidak; • Perayu menjawab bahawa beliau mengaku salah; dan • Mahkamah menerima pengakuan salah Perayu dan mensabitkan Perayu di atas kesalahan sepertimana pertuduhan. Peruntukan Undang - Undang Berkaitan [7] Seksyen 173(a), (b) dan (c) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Akta 593) memperuntukan seperti berikut: The following procedure shall be observed by Magistrates in summary trials: (a) When the accused appears or is brought before the Court a charge containing the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be framed and read and explained to him, and he shall be asked whether he is guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. (b) If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, whether as originally framed or as amended, the plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted on it and the Court shall pass sentence according to law: S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Provided that before a plea of guilty is recorded the Court shall ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea and intends to admit, without qualification, the offence alleged against him. (c) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead or claims to be tried, the Court shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Keputusan Kami [8] Terdapat satu isu sahaja yang dibangkitkan peguambela Perayu di dalam rayuan ini. Isu tersebut adalah samada sabitan terhadap Perayu adalah sah dan selamat memandangkan terdapat beberapa kecacatan semasa prosiding pengakuan salah dirakamkan di hadapan Majistret yang bijaksana. [9] Kami telah membuat penelitian terperinci terhadap kedua - dua nota keterangan yang masing - masing bertarikh 17/3/2020 di mana kami mendapati terdapat perbezaan yang ketara di dalam kedua - dua nota keterangan tersebut. Persoalannya, bagaimana pula boleh terdapat dua nota keterangan yang berbeza pada tarikh yang sama? [10] Daripada kandungan nota keterangan yang pertama, dapat dilihat bahawa pengakuan salah yang dibuat oleh Perayu nyata seperti tanpa bersyarat dan mahkamah juga turut berpuashati bahawa Perayu telah pun memahami kesan dan akibat pengakuan salahnya. S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [11] Namun yang menimbulkan tanda tanya pada kami adalah bagaimana pula pada nota keterangan tambahan yang dirakamkan pada tarikh yang sama juga, Perayu yang tidak diwakili oleh peguam telah mengambil pendirian dengan tidak mahu mengaku salah setelah jurubahasa mahkamah menerangkan kepada Perayu di dalam Bahasa Tamil bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan adalah wajib. [12] Setelah beberapa kali disoal oleh Majistret yang bijaksana samada beliau hendak mengaku salah atau tidak (walaupun Majistret yang bijaksana mengatakan bahawa tidak memaksa Perayu untuk mengaku), akhirnya Perayu telah mengubah pendiriannya untuk mengaku salah. Mahkamah menerima pengakuan salah Perayu dan mensabitkan Perayu serta menjatuhkan hukuman di atas kesalahan sepertimana pertuduhan. [13] Berdasarkan kepada keseluruhan kronologi peristiwa yang berlaku ini, jelas menunjukkan bahawa pengakuan salah oleh Perayu di peringkat terkemudian telah dibuat dengan bersyarat tanpa beliau mengetahui kesan dan akibat pengakuan salahnya itu. Namun setelah Perayu mengetahui dan menyedari di saat itu bahawa hukuman pemenjaraan adalah wajib dan akan pasti membawanya ke penjara, Perayu dengan spontan dan terang membuat pengakuan tidak bersalah. [14] Pada hemat kami, di ketika itu Majistret yang bijaksana sepatutnya membenarkan sahaja Perayu menarik balik pengakuan salahnya itu sebelum sabitan dan hukuman direkodkan. Tetapi di sebaliknya pula, Majistret yang bijaksana telah mempersoalkan penarikan balik pengakuan salah tersebut secara terus kepada Perayu (tanpa lagi memohon bantuan S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 jurubahasa Tamil) dan secara tersirat menzahirkan ketidakpuasan hatinya dengan berkata seperti berikut: “Habis yang ini semua kamu cakap tadi ni apa? Mengaku ke tak buat? betul ke atau tidak betul? So, kamu mengaku ke atau tak mengaku?" (OKT menjawab sendiri dalam Bahasa Malaysia). “Saya tak paksa. Mengaku?” [15] Kata - kata sebegini pasti telah menimbulkan ketakutan dan tekanan kepada Perayu yang hanya merupakan seorang penoreh getah sahaja. Kesan daripada pertanyaan berulang - ulang ini telah menyebabkan Perayu terus membuat pengakuan salahnya. Sudah terang lagi bersuluh, pengakuan salah sebegini rupa tidak boleh lagi disifatkan sebagai diberikan tanpa apa - apa syarat. [16] Sebelum melabuhkan tirai penghakiman ini, adalah penting dan berfaedah sekali bagi kami merujuk kepada beberapa nas undang-undang yang mantap sebagai renungan bersama dan panduan kepada mahkamah perbicaraan apabila menerima pengakuan salah seseorang Tertuduh terhadap apa - apa pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas diri mereka. [17] Di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Leng Chow Teng 1985] 1 MLJ 229, Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Mohamed Azmi (beliau pada ketika itu) menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 “The recording of a plea of guilty as distinguished from the acceptance of such plea by the court is also recognized in section 173(m)(2), Criminal Procedure Code, the relevant part of which provides: "... if a plea of guilty has been recorded and accepted the Court shall pass sentence according to law.” Thus, a plea made by the accused in person is not only good in law but also required by law except where a plea of guilty by letter is expressly provided for in any written law. But before a plea of guilty is recorded and accepted it is mandatory under sub-section 173(b) for the court to ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea and that he intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him. The words "may be convicted thereon" in sub-section 173(b) and the words "shall ascertain" in the proviso clearly envisage two different meanings and requirements. The sub-section provides that even if the accused pleads guilty the court has a discretion not to convict him with a view to admonish him or to put him on a bond of good behavior under section 173A (ii) CPC but as in all cases of discretionary powers it must be exercised judicially. The requirement in the proviso before a plea of guilty is recorded and accepted is clearly mandatory.” [18] Di dalam kes Shaiful Azmi bin Sabri v. Pendakwa Raya [2020] 6 MLJ 578, Mahkamah Rayuan melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Yaacob Md Sam HMR memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 "[27] Berbalik kepada rayuan di hadapan kami ini. Kami telah dapat meneliti rakaman CRT yang dimaksudkan. Daripada rakaman tersebut yang masih boleh diikuti dan didengar dengan jelas, hakim sesyen walau pun ada menyatakan kepada perayu bahawa di bawah seksyen kesalahan tersebut perayu boleh dikenakan hukuman penjara seumur hidup tetapi tidak menerangkan kepada perayu maksud penjara seumur hidup tersebut di bawah undang-undang adalah untuk tempoh penjara 30 tahun. Oleh kerana tontonan kami ke atas rakaman CRT melihatkan hakim sesyen ada menyebutkan hukuman peniara seumur hidup. Maka kami mengabaikan catatan nota keterangan yang mencatatkan hakim sesyen menerangkan kepada perayu tentang hukuman di bawah s6B(1)(a) ADB 1952 yang kami dapati tidak betul diruiuk oleh hakim sesyen. Kami juga mendapati fakta kes (P1) tidak menzahirkan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh perayu jika dibandingkan dengan pertuduhan. Tiada terdapat nyataan dalam fakta kes bahawa perayu yang telah menanam tiga pokok cannabis tersebut. Apa yang dizahirkan dalam fakta kes P1 adalah perayu yang telah membawa dan menunjukkan tiga batang pokok cannabis kepada pengadu. Fakta kes P1 tidak mengatakan bahawa perayu telah menanam tiga batang pokok cannabis untuk perayu membuat pengakuan terhadap fakta yang dibentangkan. Oleh itu apakah sebenarnya yang diakui sebagai benar oleh perayu? Pertuduhan juga tidak menyebutkan berat pokok atau berat tumbuhan cannabis. Secara perbandingan, semua butiran yang terdapat dalam pertuduhan kes Kamalrudin bin Drahman v Pendakwa Raya tidak terdapat dalam pertuduhan kes perayu ini, jumlah pokok dan berat cannabis terlibat. S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Kami juga dapati terdapat keraguan sama ada laporan kimia (P7) telah dibuat serahan ke atas perayu seperti mana kehendak s 399(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah untuk layak P7 tersebut diterima masuk sebagai sebahagian daripada keterangan terhadap perayu. Sekiranya laporan kimia tersebut tidak dibuat serahan ke atas perayu dan hanya dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan semasa prosiding pengakuan bersalah perayu, maka kes pendakwaan mengalami kecacatan yang sama seperti yang terdapat dalam kes Hajar bt Ishak v Pendakwa Raya yang menjadikan sabitan terhadap perayu tidak selamat kerana tidak terdapat barang kes (dadah berbahaya) yang menjadi perkara pertuduhan dikemukakan secara sah sebagai bukti di hadapan mahkamah. Perayu tidak diwakili oleh peguam dan menghadapi pertuduhan yang serius. Maka itu, adalah menjadi tugas hakim untuk benar-benar memastikan perayu faham pertuduhan yang dihadapinya dan kebenaran fakta kes yang dibentangkan yang menzahirkan kesalahan yang dilakukan serta bentuk hukuman yang akan dikenakan terhadapnya iika pengakuan bersalahnya diterima oleh mahkamah. Fakta kes P1 jelas tidak menzahirkan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh perayu seperti di dalam pertuduhan. Perayu bekerja sebagai seorang nelayan. Tidak terdapat sebarang keterangan yang dapat melihatkan tahap pendidikan perayu. Maka yang demikian, jika sekiranya perayu dijelaskan bahawa hukuman penjara seumur hidup adalah bermaksud penjara selama 30 tahun dan hukuman penjara seumur hidup 30 tahun itu bersifat mandatori dan tidak boleh dikurangkan walau apa pun mitigasi perayu jika mengaku bersalah, adakah perayu masih ingin S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 mengekalkan pengakuan salahnya? Perkara ini tidak dilakukan oleh hakim sesyen. Keadaan tersebut ditambah lagi dengan kecacatan - kecacatan yang telah kami huraikan di atas, khususnya ketiadaan keterangan bahawa s399(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah telah dipatuhi oleh pihak pendakwaan. [30] Berdasarkan kepada fakta-fakta yang terdapat itu, kami dapati terdapat keraguan sama ada perayu benar-benar faham atas sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah yang diberikannya. Banyak perkara perkara yang cacat dalam penerimaan pengakuan bersalah perayu oleh hakim sesyen. Maka yang demikian, pengakuan bersalah oleh perayu tidak boleh disifatkan sebagai telah diberikan tanpa apa-apa syarat (unequivocal). Hakim sesyen dalam menerima pengakuan bersalah perayu telah gagal mematuhi strict requirements s 173 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang menyebabkan berlakunya satu ketidakadilan (occasioning a miscarriage of justice). Kami bersetuju dan menerima pakai prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes Hajar bte Ishak v Pendakwa Raya, Ooi Lean Chai v Public Prosecutor dan ujian yang dinyatakan dalam kes Ganesun s/o Kannan v Public Prosecutor {1996} 3 SLR 560. Di atas kecacatan yang terdapat terhadap penerimaan pengakuan bersalah perayu, kami mendapati sabitan terhadap perayu adalah tidak selamat." [20] Di dalam kes Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v. Public Prosecutor [2007] 5 MLJ 666, Mahkamah Rayuan melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Gopal Sri Ram (beliau pada ketika itu) memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 "[10] In the present case, the sessions judge was denied access to information favourable to the accused. Had it been made available to her, she may well have rejected the plea of guilt on the ground that an offence may not have been committed for the want of proof of an essential allegation in the charge. For it is trite law that in a case where an accused pleads guilty, the prosecution when reciting the facts, confine itself to only those facts it can prove. See, Abdul Kadir bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor [1984] 1 MLJ 80; Mohammad bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor [1998] 5 MLJ 65. We are satisfied that the accused's conviction based on his plea of guilt may be quashed on this ground alone. But, as it happens, there are other grounds as well. And before moving onto them we must express our deep regret that the suppression of material evidence by the prosecution occurred in this case despite the reminder given by Vincent Ng JC (as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v Lee Eng Kooi [1993] 2 MLJ 322 when he said that the duty of deputy public prosecutors is (at p 336): ... to help the court arrive at the truth and to honour truth itself overrides any lingering ill-founded eagerness that they may harbour, to satisfy their superiors that they have robotically objected to the objectable. Surely, the eternal question of which version if any, abides by the truth is solely and exclusively within the domain of judicial determination and not within the purview of counsel or DPPs." [21] Di dalam kes Heng Kim Khoon v. Public Prosecutor [2007] 5 MLJ 666, Hakim Sharma memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 “The charges were read over and according to the record they were explained to and understood by the accused and he pleaded guilty thereto. He admitted the facts but in mitigation stated that the exhibits were not his and that they had been left behind by a friend of his. Proof of "possession" was the very essential ingredient of those offences and in spite of what the accused said the learned president found him guilty and convicted him on the two charges. A plea of guilty may be accepted by the court and the accused convicted on it but the court is not bound to accept a plea of guilty in all cases. The court must carefully consider whether the accused has fully understood the nature of the charge to which he pleads guilty. The accused is not to be taken at his word when he pleads guilty unless the plea is expressed in unmistakable terms with full appreciation of the essential ingredients of the offence. This rule of law is applied with all the greater stringency when the offence charged is complicated or serious. In the instant case, the question of possession was involved which can sometimes be a very difficult question. In taking down a plea of guilty the use of the set formula. “Charge read over and explained to the accused and understood by him. Pleads guilty. Understands the nature and consequences of his plea. Plea accepted." should not be the result of sheer wont and habit as if it was an empty and meaningless ritual which the pen irresistibly begins to S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 perform and complete once the magic words "I plead guilty'' are uttered by the accused. The taking down of a plea of guilty is a solemn and serious act and the magistrates should devote some time and active thought before they decide to accept that plea and base a conviction thereon. Hakim Sharma menyambung lagi: “A plea of guilty only amounts to an admission that the accused committed the acts alleged against him and not an admission of the guilt under a particular section of the Act. If he pleads guilty under an erroneous view of the law his conviction cannot stand. In such a case the plea of guilty does not avail because he cannot be said to have committed the offence in question in the eyes of the law.” [22] Di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Jamalul Khair [ 1985] 1 MLJ 316, Gunn Chit Tuan J (beliau pada ketika itu) memutuskan seperti berikut: “….that if a court upon all the facts before it thinks it is proper to accept a plea of guilty then the court may permit that plea to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty accepted at a later stage up to sentence, that is, until final adjudication.” [23] Di dalam kes Ganesan s/o Kannan v. Public Prosecutor [1996] 3 SLR 560, mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 “Firstly, the court must ensure that it is the accused himself who wishes to plead. Secondly, the court must ascertain whether the accused understand the nature and consequences of his plea. Thirdly, the court must established that the accused intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him.” Kesimpulan [24] Berdasarkan kepada alasan - alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, kami sebulat suara mendapati terdapat merit di dalam rayuan Perayu ini untuk mewajarkan kami campurtangan terhadap perintah Mahkamah Tinggi. [25] Rayuan Perayu dibenarkan. Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi bertarikh 17/2/2022, diketepikan. Selaras dengan seksyen 60 Akta Kehakiman 1964, kami memerintahkan supaya kes dikembalikan ke Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Pilah untuk dibicarakan semula. Tarikh: 19 Disember 2023 - Sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Bagi Perayu : G Nadaraja & M Siveram Rama & Assoc. Seremban Bagi Responden : Mohd Amril bin Johari Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara, Malaysia. S/N 3kqhkCI36062N8gnVm5vxw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dari segi undang - undang untuk menelitikan kegagalan Tuan Majistret untuk memberikan pilihan kepada Tertuduh selaras dengan seksyen 173(a) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (Akta 593); (b) Mahkamah Tinggi telah khilaf dari segi undang-undang untuk mengambil kira isu mengenai pengakuan tanpa bersyarat ("plea without qualification'') di mana Tertuduh enggan mengaku salah sekiranya ada hukuman penjara wajib; dan "[27] Berbalik kepada rayuan di hadapan kami ini. Kami telah dapat meneliti rakaman CRT yang dimaksudkan. Daripada rakaman tersebut yang masih boleh diikuti dan didengar dengan jelas, hakim sesyen walau pun ada menyatakan kepada perayu bahawa di bawah...

Tika 2.6.0

BA-23NCvC-3-01/2021

PLAINTIF SHAJAHAAN PREM BIN ABDULLAH DEFENDAN 1. ) ABDUL MALEK BIN MOHAMED ISMAIL 2. ) PATHMAGANI A/P R.M.IBRAHIM 3. ) MUHAMMAD VICTOR BIN ABDULLAH 4. ) ZAIRA HARYANTI BINTI ZAKARIAH

Advocates and Solicitors – Right to counsel of choice – Disqualification – Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, Rules 3, 4, 5 and 27.

22/12/2023

YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1614323e-d193-4f03-8460-d5f71090a904&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: BA-23NCVC-3-01/2021 ANTARA SHAJAHAAN PREM BIN ABDULLAH [NO: KP: (710924-10-5969] (berniaga dibawah nama dan gaya IQP SOLUTION NO. PENDAFTARAN PERNIAGAAN: 002036954-K) … PLAINTIF DAN 1. ABDUL MALEK BIN MOHAMED ISMAIL [NO: KP: (741119-10-5191] (Pengarah NINE STARS WORLDWIDE (M) SDN BHD) NO. SYARIKAT: 585959-K – Syarikat yang telah dibubarkan) 2. PATHMAGANI A/P R..M IBRAHIM [NO: KP: (511204-10-5838] (Pengarah NINE STARS WORLDWIDE (M) SDN BHD) NO. SYARIKAT: 585959-K – Syarikat yang telah dibubarkan) 3. MUHAMMAD VICTOR BIN ABDULLAH 4. ZAIRA HARYANTI BINTI ZAKARIAH … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 22/12/2023 10:01:59 BA-23NCvC-3-01/2021 Kand. 177 S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] It is a given that a litigant is entitled to a counsel of her or his choice to represent that litigant in any proceedings before the court. Needless to say, this is subject to the rider that the counsel of choice is willing and able to represent the said litigant. Likewise, and save for a number of circumstances barring an advocate and solicitor from acting in a matter before the court, an advocate and solicitor is at liberty to act on behalf a litigant that has sought the advocate and solicitor’s services in any given court proceedings. [2] In the present matter before this Court, the litigant, that is, the Plaintiff, has engaged one Mahendra Mahason and one Enoveetha Bhaskaran to act as his counsel in an action that the Plaintiff has brought against the Defendants. The willingness on the part of Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran to act on behalf of the Plaintiff in this suit is not an issue. What is not so apparent however, and thus forming the poser before this Court, is whether Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran ought to be permitted to act on behalf of the Plaintiff in the present suit. The Issue [3] The overriding issue before this Court is thus whether the application in Enclosure 155, filed by the Defendants to disqualify Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran from acting as counsel for the plaintiff is meritorious and accordingly ought to be allowed. S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] This prevailing issue is of much significance as it affects the fundamental rights of the Plaintiff in this case to have the counsel of his choice to represent him and the equally imperative right of the counsel to accept the brief. The Legal Principles and the Contentions by the Parties [5] This Court is cognizant of the fact that an order to disqualify an advocate and solicitor from acting on behalf of her or his client(s) is a drastic order. The principle that every client is entitled to a solicitor or counsel of her or his choice, as noted in the opening remarks, have been reiterated by our courts and cited by the parties in this present application. These cases include Tan Eng Hong Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors v Tan Keen Keong @ Tan Kean Keong & Ors [2022] MLJU 1211, Dato Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 MLJ 623, RS Muthiah v Pembinaan Fiba Sdn Bhd [2004] 4 MLJ 78, Mirza Mohamed Tariq Beg bin Mirza HH Beg v Margaret Low Saw Lui & Ors [2009] 4 MLJ 671, Mega Mayang M & E Sdn Bhd v Dutamasa Sdn Bhd & Anor Case [2021] MLJU 958, Low Yien Kwee & Ors v Ever Noble Sdn Bhd [2008] 5 MLJ 379, Oswald Hickson Collier v Carter-Ruck [1984] 1 AC, Tan Kok Pin v Loh Chun Hoo (sued as an Advocate and Solicitor) & Ors [2021] MLJU 3070, Pembinaan Pengurusan 3 Two Square v 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd [2018] 10 MLJ 648, Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Percon Corporation Sdn Bhd [2003] 1 LNS 268, Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) [1990] 2 AC 222, Dato Azizan bin Abdul Rahman & Ors v Pinerains Sdn Bhd [2022] 156 and Geveran Trading Co Ltd v Skjevesland [2003] 1 All ER 1. S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [6] Needless to say, this Court will heed the principles that have been enunciated by these cases, some of which emanate from the Appellate Courts. [7] Be that as it may, in a proper case, where justice demands, an order to disqualify an advocate and solicitor will nevertheless be made. It is settled law that the right of every client to have a solicitor or counsel of her or his choice is not absolute. While this Court is bound by the principles that have been articulated by the cases listed in paragraph [5] above, a decision ultimately rests on the factual matrix of each case before the court. [8] In this regard, this Court will scrutinize and evaluate the affidavits and submissions by the parties, together with the authorities cited and relied on by the parties and apply these to the facts in this case before coming to a decision. [9] The Defendants’ primary contention, in support of their application in Enclosure 155 to disqualify Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran from acting as counsel for the Plaintiff is premised on the fact that both Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran were involved in a previous Suit (Suit 417) whereby a company, SKI, had sued the present Plaintiff in that said Suit 417. The Defendants alluded to the point that Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran had acted for SKI in Suit 417. [10] It should also be mentioned that the 4th Defendant in this present action had acted as counsel for the Defendant (the current Plaintiff in this action) in Suit 417. A Consent Judgment was recorded in Suit 417. S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [11] The Plaintiff (who was the Defendant in Suit 417) has now engaged Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran to act for him in this present action, whereby the Defendants are sued for, inter alia, damages and interest for fraud, negligence and conspiracy to defraud through the Defendants’ collective acts and/or omissions in Suit 417. [12] The Defendants’ arguments in support of their application in Enclosure 155 are hence premised primarily on the following grounds, namely: 1. That to permit Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran to act for the Plaintiff in the present Suit will contravene various provisions of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978; 2. That to permit Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran to act for the Plaintiff in the present Suit will lead to a conflict of interest; and 3. That Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran will likely be called as witnesses in the present Suit. [13] The provisions of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 that the Defendants rely on in support of their application include Rules 3, 4, 5 and 27. [14] Rule 3 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 explicitly states that an advocate and solicitor shall not accept a brief if that S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 advocate and solicitor is or would be embarrassed. Rule 3 also sets out to illustrate of circumstances resulting in an embarrassment. The relevant Rule 3 reads as follows: Rule 3. Advocate and solicitor not to accept brief if embarrassed. (a) An advocate and solicitor shall not accept a brief if he is or would be embarrassed. (b) An embarrassment arises- (i) where the advocate and solicitor finds he is in possession of confidential information as a result of having previously advised another person in regard to the same matter; (ii) where there is some personal relationship between him and a party or a witness in the proceedings. [15] Rule 4 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 further prohibits an advocate and solicitor from accepting a brief if the advocate and solicitor’s professional conduct is likely to be impugned. Rule 4 provides as follows: Rule 4. No advocate and solicitor to accept brief if professional conduct likely to be impugned. S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 No advocate and solicitor shall accept a brief in a case where he knows or has reason to believe that his own professional conduct is likely to be impugned. [16] The inability on the part of an advocate and solicitor to maintain professional independence is another reason for an advocate and solicitor to reject a brief. This clear proscription is made clear in Rule 5 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. The relevant rule provides as follows: Rule 5. No advocate and solicitor to accept brief if difficult to maintain professional independence. (a) No advocate and solicitor shall accept a brief if such acceptance renders or would render it difficult for him to maintain his professional independence or is incompatible with the best interest of the administration of justice. (b) (i) An advocate and solicitor who has at any time advised or drawn pleading or acted for a party in connection with the institution or prosecution or defence of any suit, appeal or other proceedings shall not act, appear or plead for the opposite party in that suit, appeal or other proceedings. (ii) An advocate and solicitor shall not act unless the consent of the first party for whom the advocate and solicitor acted is obtained in writing and the advocate and solicitor is not embarrassed by so acting. S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [17] Another pertinent rule that may be of relevance to the present matter is Rule 27 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. The said rule states as follows: Rule 27. Advocate and solicitor not to appear where pecuniarily interested. (a) An advocate and solicitor shall not appear in any matter in which he is directly pecuniarily interested. (b) This rule does not apply to the case of an advocate and solicitor appearing himself to tax his own costs. [18] In reply to the above contentions, the Plaintiff had submitted, inter alia, that: • Allegations pertaining to breaches of the Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the LP (P&E) Rules 1978 are mere “sweeping statements”; • Allegation that the possibility of Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran be called as witnesses are again, mere “sweeping statements”; • Suit 417 has completed and Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran have obtained a consent from SKI (their previous client in Suit 417) to act for the Plaintiff (who was sued by SKI in Suit 417) in the present case; and S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 • Attempts by the Defendants to “sue” Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran on the ground of conspiracy to defraud have been settled by the Court of Appeal – culminating in a decision by the Court of Appeal in dismissing the claim against Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran. [19] As the Plaintiff has rightly pointed out, the burden lay on the party seeking for disqualification, which in this case are the Defendants. Decision of this Court: [20] The Plaintiff is right in pointing out that earlier attempts by the Defendants to “involve” Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran in the present proceedings (in Enclosure 86) have been settled by the Court of Appeal. [21] However, the issue in this present application does not relate to the liability or otherwise of Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran in the main suit between the parties but whether Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran should be disqualified from acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. [22] Rule 3(b)(i) of the LP (P&E) Rules 1978 in no uncertain terms states that: An embarrassment arises- S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (i) where the advocate and solicitor finds he is in possession of confidential information as a result of having previously advised another person in regard to the same matter; (own emphasis) [23] While Suit 417 and the present suit are not the “same matter” or “same Suit” the genesis of the present suit can be traced to Suit 417. While Suit 417 and the present suit may not be the same matter, they are intertwined. In this regard, to permit Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran to act for the Plaintiff in the present suit will run afoul of Rule 3(b)(i) of the LP (P&E) Rules 1978. [24] This Court is also mindful of the injunction as prescribed in Rule 5(b)(i) of the LP (P&E) Rules 1978. As noted above, it states affirmatively that: An advocate and solicitor who has at any time advised or drawn pleading or acted for a party in connection with the institution or prosecution or defence of any suit, appeal or other proceedings shall not act, appear or plead for the opposite party in that suit, appeal or other proceedings. (own emphasis) [25] This Court is of the considered view that the above sanctions apply to the present case. [26] Furthermore, the very nature of the main action raises the likelihood that Mahendra Mahason and Enoveetha Bhaskaran may have to testify as witnesses at the trial. S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [27] In view of the above findings, the application in Enclosure 155 is allowed. [28] I make no order as to costs. Dated: 22 December, 2023 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Mahendra Mahason with Enoveetha Bhaskaran for the Plaintiff (Messrs. Sree Harry & Co.) Zaira Haryati binti Zakariah for the Defendants (Messrs. Gengeswary Kengkayah & Co.) S/N PjIUFpPRA0EYNX3EJCpBA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-A72-144-07/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) ENG LIN HUAT @ NG BENG HUAT 2. ) NG BOON WAH 3. ) NG AI LEE DEFENDAN 1. ) LOO SHIN YEW 2. ) LIM WEN XIN WYNN

Leave to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim pursuant to Order 18 rule 4 Rules of Court 2012. Preliminary objection for want of authorization. Order 16 rule 11 ROC 2012 and Order 15 rule 2 ROC 2012. Whether it was necessary for the Defendants to file the said reply and can the court exercise its inherent powers under Order 92 rules 4 of the ROC 2012.

22/12/2023

Puan Sangitaa a/p Subramaniam

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3dedaba2-2086-4292-afaf-cedb5a99d9fd&Inline=true

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-A72-144-07/2023 BETWEEN 1. ENG LIN HUAT @NG BENG HUAT (NRIC. No: 480410-08-6149) 2. NG BOON WAH (NRIC. No: 811208-14-5655) 3. NG AI LEE (NRIC. No: 790801-14-5956) …PLAINTIFFS AND 1. LOO SHIN YEW (NRIC. No: 900618-14-5273) 2. LIM WEI XIN WYNN (NRIC. No: 830401-14-6194) …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Application of the Defendants under Order 18 Rule 4 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 and/or pursuant to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court) Introduction [1] Justice is not limited, it is a universal quality. This Court had this in mind when it granted leave to the Defendants to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim pursuant to Order 18 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. The application of the Defendants was allowed with costs in the cause. 22/12/2023 15:11:12 WA-A72-144-07/2023 Kand. 34 S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [2] I will now set out the background facts, the parties’ respective contentions/ submissions and my reasons for having allowed the Defendants application after having analysed the applicable law in relation to the issues at hand. Case Background [3] This suit concerns a dispute arising from a Tenancy Agreement dated 1.03.2022 entered between the Plaintiffs [landlords] and the First Defendant [tenant] in respect of one (1) unit of double-storey semi-detached landed house having an address at No. 8, Jalan Rimbunan Melor 3, Areca Residence, Laman Rimbunan, Kepong, 52100 Kuala Lumpur (“Premise”) for a period of two (2) years (“Tenancy Agreement”) ie from 01.03.2022 until 28.02.2023. [4] The Second Defendant is a guarantor on behalf of the 1st Defendant in respect of the Tenancy Agreement vide Performance Guarantee dated 01.03.2022. [5] The Plaintiffs instituted the action against the Defendants to claim for, inter alia, double rental for March 2023 and repair costs. [6] According to the Defendants, there are new facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs which have not been pleaded in the Statement of Claim in Enclosure 2. [7] On this basis, the Defendants applied for leave from this Honourable Court to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. Preliminary Objection S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [8] This Court shall address the preliminary objection raised by the Plaintiffs’ counsel before venturing into the merits of the Defendants’ application to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. [9] The Plaintiffs’ counsel raised a preliminary objection vide Enclosure 10 concerning the validity of Enclosure 9 for want of authorization by the First Defendant for the Second Defendant to affirm the affidavit in Enclosure 9 on his behalf. It is the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Affidavit in support sworn by one Lim Wen Xin Wynn is defective and therefore it should be rejected. This is so because the said Affidavit in Support does not expressly state that the First defendant, Loo Shin Yew has authorized Lim Wen Xin Wynn to depose the Affidavit in Support on his behalf. [10] The Court has also observed the following in paragraph 1 of Enclosure 9 where the second Defendant affirms the affidavit to support of the Defendants’ application in Enclosure 8. It is stated by the second Defendant that he is deposing this Affidavit in support of the application by all defendants. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [11] This Court agrees with the Defendants that the authorization can be implied through the express statement by the Second Defendant. In any event, even in a case of a defective affidavit, this Court opines that the preliminary objection raised by the Plaintiffs is a non-issue due to the existence of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 which is reproduced below: - Use of defective affidavit (O. 41, r. 4) 4. An affidavit may, with the leave of the Court, be filed or used in evidence notwithstanding any irregularity in the form thereof. [12] Following the reasons stated above, I dismiss the preliminary objection raised by the Plaintiffs and hold that there is no non-compliance of the rules stipulated under the provisions of Order 41 Rules of Court 2012. The Affidavit in Support of Enclosure 8 meets the preconditions required. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The Defendant’s Contention [13] These are the contentions of the Defendants for the application to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim: (a) that it is necessary for the Defendants to reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim; (b) that the counterclaim filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs is a separate action; (c) that the Defendants would be greatly prejudiced during trial if objections were raised by the Plaintiffs for introducing evidence not pleaded; (d) that the Plaintiffs will not suffer any prejudice if the Court allows Enclosure 8. The Plaintiff’s Contention [14] In opposing the Defendants’ application to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim, the Plaintiffs’ have relied on the following grounds: (a) Enclosure 8 cannot depend on a general provision provided for under Order 94 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 because of a specific provision under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012; (b) An application under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 can only be allowed if it is necessary and this is to ensure finality in the pleadings; (c) Enclosure 8 has to be rejected due to the following reasons: - i. that the draft reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence is in contravention of Order 18 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 as it attempts to introduce evidence instead of being a statement in a summary form of the material facts; ii. that Enclosure 8 is not necessary; iii. that Enclosure 8 intends to improve the defence; S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal iv. that Enclosure 8 is an afterthought; v. that Enclosure 8 is prejudicial to the Plaintiffs. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ENCLOSURE 8 A. It is necessary for the Defendants to be allowed to reply to file a Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim [15] The Defendants by way of Enclosure 8 are seeking leave to reply to the Plaintiffs’ new facts raised in their Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. [16] Vide the Plaintiffs’ Affidavit in Reply in Enclosure 10, the Plaintiffs averred that no new grounds had been pleaded in the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. However, this Court is of the view that the Plaintiffs have pleaded new facts vide the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [17] The table below sets out comparison of pleadings as appeared in the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim and the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim: - (a) The extension of tenancy period of the Premise. Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim “7. Tempoh penyewaan Premis tersebut telah luput pada 28.02.2023 mengikut Klausa 1.1 Perjanjian tersebut. Pada atau sekitar 31.03.2023, wakil Tuan Tanah telah meminta satu pemeriksaan bersama dengan Penyewa sebelum Tuan Tanah menerima serahan milikan kosong Premis tersebut. “2. Tuan Tanah tidak pernah bersetuju untuk melanjutkan tempoh penyewaan Premis tersebut sehingga 26.03.2023. Tuan Tanah juga tidak menerima apa- apa notis bertulis untuk lanjutan tersebut daripada Penyewa seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam Klausa 3.2(b) Perjanjian tersebut. 3.Penyewa telah memegang milikan Premis tersebut tanpa persetujuan Tuan Tanah daripada 01.03.2023 sehingga 30.03.2023. Oleh itu, Tuan Tanah adalah berhak untuk mengenakan bayaran sewa dua kali ganda bagi bulan Mac 2023 di bawah proviso di Klausa 3.3 Perjanjian tersebut. (b) The Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to return vacant possession of the Premise. Paragraph 8 Statement of Claim Paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim “8. Namun demikian, Penyewa gagal, ingkar, dan/atau cuai untuk menghadiri pemeriksaan bersama dan telah meninggalkan kunci Premis tersebut didalam peti surat Premis tersebut pada 30.03.2023.” “6. Klausa 6.16(a) Perjanjian tersebut yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 5(v) Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut hendaklah dibaca secara keseluruhan. Ini bermaksud Penyewa bertanggungjawab untuk, antara lainnya, menyerahkan milikan kosong Premis tersebut bersama kunci kepada Tuan Tanah dalam keadaan baik S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal yang sama dengan keadaan semasa Penyewa menerim milikan kosong Premis tersebut. 7. Oleh itu, , tindakan meninggalkan kunci Premis tersebut dalam peti surat yang tidak terkunci mengingkari Klausa 6.16(a) Perjanjian tersebut dan merupakan tindakan sepihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab oleh Penyewa kerana mendedahkan kunci Premis tersebut kepada risiko kehilangan. Malah, Tuan Tanah juga terpaksa menggantikan 2 keping kad akses baharu Premis tersebut kerana Penyewa telah gagal mengembalikan kad akses tersebut. 8. Memandangkan Penyewa telah menyerahkan milikan kosong bersama kunci Premis tersebut kepada Tuan Tanah sehingga memuaskan Tuan Tanah mengikuti prasyarat dalam klausa 5.3(a), (b) dan (c) Perjanjian tersebut, Penyewa tidak berhak kepada pemulangan deposit. Perenggan 7.3, 7.5 dan 7.6 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut adalah tidak benar dan dakwaan Penyewa dan Penjamin bahawa Tuan Tanah tidak menghadapi isu menjumpai kunci Premis tersebut bukannya alasan yang munasabah untuk menwajarkan cara serahan milikan kosong dengan sewenang- wenangnya.” (c) Allegation to defraud the Plaintiffs on real condition of the Premise. Statement of Claim Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim Not pleaded. “9. Merujuk kepada perenggan 7.3, 7.4, 8, 8.1 dan 8.2 Pembelaan dan Tuntutan Balas tersebut, Tuan Tanah menegaskan rakaman video adalah terhad kepada kawasan-kawasan Premis tersebut yang berpihak kepada Penyewa supaya memberi gambaran palsu bahawa keadaan Premis tersebut adalah memuaskan. Rakaman video tidak S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal menunjukkan keadaan sebenar Premis tersebut. 10. Oleh itu, Tuan Tanah tidak menerima rakaman video Penyewa sebagai bukti Premis tersebut berada dalam keadaan baik. 11. Akibat daripada kegagalan Penyewa untuk membaikpulih Premis tersebut kepada keadaan asal di bawah Klausa 6.16(a)(iv) Perjanjian tersebut, Tuan Tanah terpaksa membaikpulih Premis tersebut supaya Premis tersebut boleh disewa semula kepada penyewa lain. Oleh itu, Penyewa telah gagal mematuhi prasyarat mengikut Klausa 5.3(a), (b) and (c) Perjanjian tersebut. Perenggan 9, 9.1 dan 9.2 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut adalah tidak benar. 12. Keperluan Tuan Tanah untuk memberikan notis berkenaan kerosakan Premis tersebut dalam perenggan 9.3 dan 9.4 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut adalah tidak terpakai. Hal ini kerana Klausa 6.4(a)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) Perjanjian tersebut hendaklah dibaca secara keseluruhan. Ini bermaksud notis tersebut hanya bertujuan untuk memaklum Penyewa kemungkinan Tuan Tanah dan/atau ejennya memasuki Premis tersebut sekiranya kerja pembaikan dilakukan semasa tempoh penyewaan. Dalam apa-apa keadaan sekalipun, Penyewa dikehendaki untuk menanggungrugi segala kos kerja pembaikan Premis tersebut akibat daripada keingkaran Penyewa di bawah Klausa 6.16(a)(iv) dan 13(b) Perjanjian tersebut.” (d) Allegation to defame the Third Plaintiff. Statement of Claim Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim Not pleaded. “15.Invois bertarikh 12.04.2023 telah dikeluarkan oleh Trend Office Planner Sdn S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Bhd (“TOPSB”) kepada P1 sahaja. P1 dan P2 bukannya pengarah dan/atau pemegang saham substantial TOPSB. Penyewa dan Penjamin gagal menjelaskan bagaimanakah kos pembaikan sebanyak RM 5,290.00 boleh memanfaatkan kepentingan Tuan Tanah sedangkan Penyewa sendiri yang gagal membaikpulih Premis tersebut. 16. Hubungan antara P3 dengan TOPSB tidak bermaksud tiada apa-apa kerja pembaikan telah dijalankan kerana TOPSB juga telah melantik subkontraktor- subkontraktor untuk membaikpulih keadaan Premis tersebut akibat daripada kerosakan dan kecelaruan Penyewa. Hubungan TOPSB dengan Tuan Tanah tidak relevan kepada Penyewa dan Penjamin. 17. Tuan Tanah menegaskan bahawa Penyewa dan Penjamin telah memfitnah Tuan Tanah dan TOPSB di perenggan 9.4, 9.5 dan 9.6 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut. TOPSB merupakan sebuah entity yang berasingan di bawah undang-undang syarikat dan bukannya pihak kepada penyewaan dan tuntutan ini. Dakwaan Penyewa dan Penjamin terhadap TOPSB sebagai pihak ketiga adalah sesuatu fitnah dan dibangkitkan semata-mata dengan niat untuk memburukkan nama baik TOPSB dengan dakwaan frod dan dengan mempersoalkan integrity TOPSB dan Tuan Tanah dengan sewenang-wenangnya. 18. Tuan Tanah berhak untuk memilih mana- mana pihak seperti TOPSB dan kontraktor lain yang mempunyai kebolehan untuk menjalan kerja-kerja pembaikan pada harga yang munasabah. 19. Penyewa dan Penjamin sepatutnya membuat pengesahan fakta terdahulu sebelum membuat dakwaan salah berdasarkan anggapan dan kejahilan mereka yang tidak disokong oleh fakta. Fitnah Penyewa dan Penjamin hanyalah percubaan untuk mengelakkan liability Penyewa untuk S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal menanggungrugi kos pembaikan Premis tersebut. 20. Dakwaan frod jugak tidak berasas kerana tiada sebarang butir-butir frod diplidkan oleh Penyewa dan Penjamin. 21. Tuan Tanah mengekalkan hak mereka untuk memgambil tindakan selanjutnya terhadap Penyewa dan Penjamin berkenaan dakwaan-dakwaan palsu di perenggan 9.4, 9.5 dan 9.6 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas. 22. Memandangkan Penyewa telah gagal, ingkar dan/atau cuai dalam serahan milikan kosongan dalam keadaan yang baik dan menjelaskan Bil Utiliti Tertunggak, Tuan Tanah berhak untuk melucutkan cagaran. Tuntutan sewa dua kali ganda adalah berpunca daripada kegagalan Penyewa sendiri untuk menyerah milikan kosong pada 28.02.2023. Perenggan 11 Pembelaan & Tuntutan Balas tersebut adalah tidak berasas.” [18] The findings of this Court based on the above are such that it is necessary for the Defendants to file their reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. [19] The Defendants’ proposed reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim is not a bare denial without positive assertions. (a) The reply is to strengthen the Defendants’ stance that the First Defendant had not breached the Tenancy Agreement. Reference is made to the Court of Appeal case of HSB Bank Malaysia Bhd v Macquarie Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd [2004] 4 MLJ 398, wherein the Court held that: S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “A party may in any pleading plead any matter which has arisen at any time, whether before or since the issue of the writ (O 18 r 9 of the RHC). ….” (b) The Defendants’ proposed reply is also made to further clarify the facts that have already been pleaded by the Defendants in the Defence and Counterclaim rather than attempting to improve the Defendants’ Defence and Counterclaim. In the case of ESP Synergy Sdn Bhd v KB Enviro Sdn Bhd [2018] 8 MLJ 516, the High Court held that: “[47] The other reason for my allowing the amendment application is that a careful review of the pleadings would readily reveal that the issue of the alleged failure in the supply of slop oil by the defendant is in actuality not entirely absent from the pleadings of the plaintiff. This contention was not highlighted even by the plaintiff but the fact is, it was already stated in para 4.3(viii) of the statement of claim that the defendant was to undertake marketing activities for the slop oil business and in para 13.3 that the defendant had failed to do any such activities. [49] A reply to defence is also part of pleadings under O 18 of the RC 2012 . In any event, surely, this averment in the statement of reply by the plaintiff to the defence of the defendant puts paid to any argument by the defendant that the latter had been caught by surprise or in any fashion prejudiced by the questions on the slop oil supply. On this S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal basis alone, I find that the plaintiff’s application is in essence merely to further clarify what has already been pleaded, and should therefore be allowed.” [21] The Defendants’ in this case had also filed a counterclaim for a refund of their deposit payment. Following Order 16 rule 11 and Order 15 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 which is reproduced below, this court is of the view that since these referred provisions of law puts forth that in respect of a counterclaim, the person bringing the claim should be treated as the plaintiff and the person against whom it is made should be treated as the defendant, the application of the Defendants’ in Enclosure 8 to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim should be allowed with the leave of court pursuant to Order 18 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. 11. Counterclaim by defendant (O. 16 r. 11) Where in any action a counterclaim is made by a defendant, the foregoing provisions of this Order shall apply in relation to the counterclaim as if the subject matter of the counterclaim is the original subject matter of the action, and as if the person making the counterclaim were the plaintiff and the person against whom it is made a defendant. 2. Counterclaim against plaintiff (O. 15 r. 2) (1) Subject to rule 5(2), a defendant in any action who alleges that he has any claim or is entitled to any relief or remedy against a plaintiff in the action in respect of any matter (whenever and however arising) may, instead of bringing a separate action, make a counterclaim in respect of that matter; and where he does so he shall add the counterclaim to his defence. (2) Rule 1 shall apply in relation to a counterclaim as if the counterclaim were a separate action and as if the person making the counterclaim were the plaintiff and the person against whom it is made a defendant. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4. Pleadings subsequent to reply (O. 18 r. 4) Pleadings subsequent to a reply or a defence to a counterclaim shall not be served except with the leave of the Court. [20] Further, the High Court in the case of Emperor Classic Lighting Sdn Bhd v Wong Toon Weng [2021] MLJU 2746 held that leave to serve subsequent pleadings ought to be granted if it was necessary to do so as can be seen below: - “… The pleadings subsequent to a reply are referred to as a rejoinder (by defendant); surrejoinder (by plaintiff); rebutter (by defendant); surrebutter (by plaintiff). All except a rejoinder are rare. Even a rejoinder is seldom filed. It may be necessary, for example, where a defendant raises a counterclaim for libel and the plaintiff in his reply and defence to counterclaim pleads qualified privilege to which the defendant wishes to plead express malice, which he can only do in a rejoinder; or where the plaintiff raises a counterclaim to the defendant’s counterclaim, to which the defence can only be contained in a rejoinder….” [21] This Court is of the view that the Defendants’ proposed reply in Exhibit L-2 of the Affidavit in Support in Enclosure 9 did not depart from the Defendants’ pleading in the Defence and Counterclaim. The Court of Appeal in the case of Khazanah Jaya Sdn Bhd v Hisco (M) Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 MLJ 744 had held that parties’ subsequent pleadings must not depart and/or raise a new ground and/or claim inconsistent with the previous pleadings as can be seen below: - “…In so stating we are cognisant of the principle that in a reply to defence, the plaintiff cannot be inconsistent with any previous pleading, nor raise a new ground or claim. In Mat bin Lim & Anor v Ho Yut Kam & Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 13, Raja Azlan Shah J (as HRH then was) said:.. S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal That being the case, the reply must not depart from the statement of claim. In this connection I may as well adopt a passage from the current edition of Bullen & Leake’s Precedents and Pleadings (11th Ed) at p 694: The plaintiff, however, must not set up in his reply a new cause of action which is not raised either on the writ or in the statement of claim; it is provided that ‘no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same’. In other words the reply must not contradict or ‘depart’ from the statement of claim. [43] The function of a reply in the overall scheme of pleadings in a civil action was considered and well expressed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Romar Positioning Equipment Pte Ltd v Merriwa Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] SGCA 44; [2004] 4 SLR 574, where the court held: It bears remembering that the function of a reply is to allow the plaintiff to raise facts in answer to the defendant’s case. In particular, it will be necessary to file a reply if the defendant raises a new issue for the first time in the defence. As the function of a reply is limited to answering matters raised in the defence, it follows that the reply should not be used as an avenue to introduce new causes of action which are not raised in the statement of claim. If a plaintiff wishes to raise an additional and inconsistent claim in the alternative after the statement of claim has been filed, the proper approach should be to apply to amend the statement of claim, rather than slip it in by way of the reply.” [22] This Court allowed the Defendants’ application in Enclosure 8 to avoid causing injustice to the Defendants while also considering the fact that the Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice in any way if the Court allows Enclosure 8. Reference is made to the case of Eon Bank Berhad v Foreswood Indus. Sb [1999] MLJU 158 wherein, in discussing the mandatory nature of Order 18 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the learned High Court judge referred to the case of S.A. Andavan v Registrar Of Titles, Negeri Sembilan & Ors (1977) 2 MLJ 220. There, Ajaib Singh J held: - "Litigation is governed by rules of procedure and no side may take undue advantage over another by side-stepping any rule and it is the duty of the court to ensure that the parties engage themselves in a fair contest.” B. Inherent powers of the Court [23] The Plaintiff’s contended that Enclosure 8 cannot depend on a general provision provided for under Order 94 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 because of a specific provision under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. This Court opines that pursuant to Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, the Court has inherent power to allow the Defendants’ application for leave as was done in the case at hand. Reference is made to the High Court case of Dominic Selvam a/l S Gnanapragasam v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2007] 2 MLJ 761 where Abdul Malik Ishak J held that: “The inherent jurisdiction of the court has been invoked in a wide variety of circumstances and in an apparently inexhaustible ways and manners. The courts have invoked it in many instances ……… The inherent jurisdiction of the court is said to be procedural and not substantive. And it is applicable in both civil and criminal cases (see Connelly v DPP and R v Jefferies [1968] 3 WLR 830; [1968] 3 All ER 238).” Conclusion S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [24] Accordingly, after careful scrutiny and judicious consideration of all affidavits and written submissions of both parties, this Court is satisfied that the Defendants should be granted leave to file and serve a reply to the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim dated 8.09.2023 in Enclosure 8. Dated: 22nd December 2023 SIGNED SANGITAA A/P SUBRAMANIAM Magistrate Magistrate Court 4 (Civil) Plaintiffs’ Solicitor : Messrs ELISON WONG Defendants’ Solicitor: Messrs ARTHUR WANG, LIAN & ASSOCIATES S/N oqvtPYYgkkKvr87bWpnZ/Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-25-35-05/2021

PEMOHON LETCHUMY A/P SUBRAMANIAM RESPONDEN 1. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN PELAJARAN 3. ) KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

an application for judicial review in accordance with Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). The applicants (collectively “the applicants”) filed this application to challenge the decision made by the first respondent, the Education Service Disciplinary Appeal Board on 24 August 2020. The decision in question pertained to the dismissal of the applicants appeal regarding disciplinary actions taken against them by the Education Service Disciplinary Board for the Support Group (No. 1) (“LTPPKS1”) - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993

22/12/2023

YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=15e06be9-bd6a-4190-a215-aea3697880cb&Inline=true

1 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-35-05/2021 Dalam Perkara Kebenaran untuk Memfailkan Prosiding Semakan Kehakiman Di Bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah 3 dan Kaedah 3(7) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 serta bidang kuasa Mahkamah sedia ada untuk membenarkan permohonan untuk lanjutan masa; Dan Dalam Perkara Keputusan oleh Responden Pertama bertarikh 24.08.2020 yang menolak rayuan terhadap keputusan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Kumpulan Sokongan (No.1) bertarikh 25.3.2019; Dan Dalam Perkara Perenggan 1 kepada Jadual Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964; Dan Dalam Perkara Bab VIII Bahagian 2 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950; Dan Dalam Perkara Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 dan Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan 1994. 22/12/2023 13:31:42 BA-25-35-05/2021 Kand. 58 S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 ANTARA SAKTHI DEVI A/P MUNIANDY @ SEGARAN (No. K/P: 810407-14-5952) …PEMOHON DAN 1. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN PENDIDIKAN 2. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA 3. KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN Didengar Bersama DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-36-05/2021 Dalam Perkara Kebenaran untuk Memfailkan Prosiding Semakan Kehakiman Di Bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah 3 dan Kaedah 3(7) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 serta bidang kuasa Mahkamah sedia ada untuk membenarkan permohonan untuk lanjutan masa. Dan Dalam Perkara Keputusan oleh Responden Pertama bertarikh 24.08.2020 yang menolak rayuan terhadap keputusan Lembaga S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Kumpulan Sokongan (No.1) bertarikh 25.3.2019 Dan Dalam Perkara Perenggan 1 kepada Jadual Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 Dan Dalam Perkara Bab VIII Bahagian 2 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 Dan Dalam Perkara Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 dan Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan 1994 ANTARA LETCHUMY A/P SUBRAMANIAM (No. K/P: 791103-10-5950) …PEMOHON DAN 1. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN PENDIDIKAN 2. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA 3. KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an application for judicial review in accordance with Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). The applicants, Sakthi Devi A/P Muniandy (“Sakthi”) and Letchumy A/P Subramaniam (“Letchumy”) (collectively “the applicants”) filed this application to challenge the decision made by the first respondent, the Education Service Disciplinary Appeal Board on 24 August 2020. The decision in question pertained to the dismissal of the applicants appeal regarding disciplinary actions taken against them by the Education Service Disciplinary Board for the Support Group (No. 1) (“LTPPKS1”). [2] LTPPKS1 is not named as one of the respondents in the present suit before this court. The decision which the applicants seek this court to quash is an order of the Appeal Board under the Ministry of Education affirming the decision of LTPPKS1 to dismiss the applicants from services. [3] The disciplinary action against Sakthi and Letchumy were conducted separately by the LTPPKS1. Both Sakthi and Letchumy respectively received a letter dated 29 December 2017 entitled “Disciplinary Action with the purpose of Dismissal or Reduction in Rank” (“the LTPPKS1 Letters”). At that material time, Sakthi and Letchumy are both teachers working in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Rambai (“SJKT Ladang Sungai Rambai”). S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 [4] Due to the similarity in the factual matrix surrounding the disciplinary proceedings before LTPPKS1 and subsequently the first respondent, the applicants have in their respective Affidavit in Support averred that the application for judicial review by both the applicants can be heard together. The respondents have acknowledged the same. These two applications were heard together before this court. Reliefs Sought [5] Briefly, the applicants sought the following reliefs in this application for judicial review: (i) an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first respondent in rejecting the appeal against the LTPPKS1 decision; (ii) an order that the LTPPKS1 decision be quashed; (iii) that the applicants be reinstated as second respondent and third respondent’s employee as teacher and be placed in a school located in Kuala Selangor; (iv) that all salaries and allowances which were suspended by the respondents ever since they were suspended and throughout the proceedings of this application for judicial review be taxed by the court and paid to the applicants jointly and/or severally; (v) damages suffered by the applicants to be paid by the respondents jointly and/or severally; S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 (vi) all instruction and order arisen and necessary; and (vii) interests and costs. Factual Background [6] The applicants averred that the cause of all events that happened is the teachers’ complaint against the then headmistress of SJKT Ladang Sungai Rambai, Mehar Banu Binti Pakeer Mohammad (“the SJKTLSR Headmistress”) which ultimately led to the issuance of the Sakthi Transfer Order and the Letchumy Transfer Order. The applicants were serving as Pegawai Perkhidmatan Pendidikan at Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (SJK) (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Rambai (“SJKTLSR”), Selangor then transferred to SJK (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Tinggi, Kuala Selangor, Selangor. [7] The applicants’ Affidavit in Support contained averments in relation to how they suffered oppression by the collective conspiracy between the SJKTLSR Headmistress and the officers of the Kuala Selangor District Education Office. [8] Due to the applicants’ failure to report to their new school, disciplinary action has been taken against them. The applicants’ appeal against their respective Transfer Order receive no response except their appeal against the Kuala Selangor District Education Office which the outcome thereof was not in their favour. The applicants did not receive any reply on their complaints against the SJKTLSR Headmistress too. The applicants were eventually dismissed pursuant to the decision of the first respondent. S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 The Charges [9] The charges framed against both the applicants were identical and could be succinctly reproduced as follows: (i) in relation to the First Charge (“First Charge”), the applicants, during their service in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Rambai, Kuala Selangor, Selangor have, without the approval of the Head of Department, exited the vicinity of the school and went to the Bestari Jaya Police Station and therafter to the Selangor Education Department during teaching hours on 1 March 2017, 9.20 a.m. The applicants were reported to have failed to return to the school for the rest of the day and have never recorded the applicants’ return hour. Such act of the applicants shall be deemed to have breached the code of conduct under General Order 5 Chapter G, rule 5 vis-à-vis compliance with working hours and the applicants were being charged for being irresponsible and insubordination under Regulations 4(2)(g) and 4(2)(i), Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 (“1993 Regulations”); (ii) in relation to the Second Charge (“Second Charge”), the charges framed against the applicants respectively are as followed:- (1) as against Sakthi, that she being on duty in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Tinggi, Kuala Selangor, Kuala Selangor, Selangor had been found to have failed to attend duty without leave or without first S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 having obtained the approval of the Head of Department or without any valid reason during a period from 2 May 2017 until 30 June 2017 and therefore disciplinary action could be initiated against Sakthi under Reg. 24 of the 1993 Regulations and be taken as in breach of the code of conduct under Regulation 4(2)(g) of the 1993 Regulations; (2) as against Letchumy, that she being on duty in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Selangor River, Bukit Rotan, Selangor had been found to have failed to attend duty without first having obtained the approval of the Head of Department or without any valid reason during a period from 2 May 2017 until 24 July 2017 and therefore disciplinary action could be initiated against Letchumy under Regulation 24 of the 1993 Regulations and be taken as in breach of the code of conduct under Reg. 4(2)(g) of the 1993 Regulations. (iii) in relation to the Third Charge (“Third Charge”), the charges framed against the applicants are as follows respectively: (1) as against Sakthi, the she being on duty in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Tinggi, Kuala Selangor, Kuala Selangor, Selangor had been found to have committed insubordination by failing to report on 2 May 2017 following the Transfer Order issued by the Kuala Selangor District Education Office dated 27 April S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 2017 (“the Sakthi Transfer Order”) and such conduct can be taken to mean that Sakthi had breached the code of conduct under Regulation 4(2)(i) of the 1993 Regulations; (2) as against Letchumy, that she being on duty in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Selangor River, Bukit Rotan, Selangor had been found to have committed insubordination by failing to report on 2 May 2017 following the Transfer Order issued by the Kuala Selangor District Education Office dated 27 April 2017 (“the Letchumy Transfer Order”) and such conduct can be taken to mean that Letchumy had breached the code of conduct under Regulation 4(2)(i) of the 1993 Regulations. [10] Vide two separate letters both dated 25 March 2019, LTPPKS1 have through the Secretary General of third respondent conveyed to each of the applicants the decision of LTPPKS1, and the punishments meted out against the applicants are same, as follows: (i) in relation to the First Charge, the applicants were given a warning pursuant to Regulation 38(a) of the 1993 Regulations; (ii) in relation to the Second Charge, the applicants were dismissed effective from 19 March 2019 pursuant to Regulation 38(g) of the 1993 Regulations and during the period which the applicants were absent from duty, the rights S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 to emolument were forfeited pursuant to Regulation 38(c) of the 1993 Regulations; (iii) with respect to the Third Charge, the applicants were dismissed effective from 19 March 2019 pursuant to Regulation 38(g) of the 1993 Regulations. (collectively as “LTPPKS1 Decision”) [11] The applicants were given the opportunity to appeal to first respondent within fourteen (14) days from the date the applicants received the LTPPKS1 Decision provided the appeal is made through the applicants’ respective Head of Department and, the appeal letter prepared by the applicants are to be addressed to the Chairman of first respondent, through the Headmaster of the schools which the details thereof have been stated in the LTPPKS1 Decision. The applicants submitted the appeal letter. [12] On 24 August 2020, the first respondent had through the Deputy Chairman of the second respondent, the Education Service Commission rejected the appeal of the applicants and affirmed the LTPPKS1 Decision (“the first respondent Decision”). Both the applicants acknowledged being communicated with the first respondent Decision. Aggrieved by the first respondent Decision, both the applicants filed their respective application for judicial review before this court. S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 The Grounds for The Judicial Review Application [13] The applicant’s grounds for this judicial review succinctly are as follows: (i) the first respondent’s Decision is defective, irregular and bias; (ii) the first respondent’s Decision in rejecting the applicants’ appeal against the LTPPKS1 decision is unlawful due to irregularity in procedure and substance, and biasness; (iii) the applicants were not treated equally with other officers which are involved in the same misconduct; (iv) the second respondent and third respondent have breached their fiduciary duty toward the applicants and not replying to the letters of the applicants; and (v) the first respondent’s Decision is a consequence of conspiracy between the officers of the second respondent and third respondent. Law relating to Judicial Review [14] Before this court proceeds to consider this application, it would be prudent to consider the legal principles relating to an application for judicial review. Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides for the procedures for an application for judicial review. [15] The principles surrounding the application for judicial review are trite. The court hearing an application for judicial review are allowed S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 to scrutinize not only the decision making process but also for substance, as to whether they are tainted by illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety and also proportionality [refer the Federal Court case of R Rama Chandra v. Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 147]. [16] Notwithstanding the foregoing approach, it has also been decided by the Federal Court case of Ranjut Kaur S Gopal Singh v Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn. Bhd. [2010] 8 CLJ 629 that, only in the most appropriate of cases the Rama Chandran (supra) approach is applicable. Cases involving issue of public policy, national interest, public safety or national security are not amenable to the approach taken in Rama Chandran (supra). [17] Founded on these principles, this court will now proceed to analyse the grounds presented by the applicant in this application for judicial review. Analysis and Findings [18] In order to consider whether these applications would warrant an order of certiorari, this court referred to the provisions of the Education Service Disciplinary Board Regulations 1994 (“the 1994 Regulations”). [19] As the first respondent gave a decision pursuant to subregulation 11(2) of the 1994 Regulations, it is pertinent to refer to the 1994 Regulations on the procedural requirements governing the disciplinary appeal proceedings before the first respondent. S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 [20] In this respect, regulations 14 and 15 of the 1994 Regulations provide: “Regulation 14. Procedure of appeal. (1) An appeal shall be made in writing by an officer referred to the regulation 13 (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") to be Disciplinary Appeal Board through his Head of Department within fourteen days from the date on which the decision of the Disciplinary Board is communicated to him in writing. (2) The Head of Department shall, not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the appeal from the appellant, submit such appeal to the Disciplinary Board together with his comments. (3) On receipt of the appeal under subregulation (2) the Disciplinary Board shall cause to be prepared a copy of the records of proceedings of the Disciplinary Board, including the grounds on which the Disciplinary Board relied upon in arriving at its decision. (4) The records of proceedings prepared under subregulation (3) together with the grounds of decision and the appellant's appeal shall be sent to the Disciplinary Appeal Board not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the appeal by the Disciplinary Board. Regulation 15. Hearing of appeal. (1) Upon receipt of the documents, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Appeal Board shall convene a meeting of the Disciplinary Appeal Board to consider the appeal. (2) The Disciplinary Appeal Board shall decide an appeal solely on the merits of the grounds of the appeal without receiving any further statement or evidence. S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 (3) Notwithstanding subregulation (2), the Disciplinary Appeal Board may, at its sole discretion and subject to the appellant's right of being heard, call for any statement or evidence from any person if it is of the opinion that it would be fair and just so to do. (4) After considering the appeal, the Disciplinary Appeal Board may- (a) remit the case to the Disciplinary Board for reconsideration; (b) confirm the decision of the Disciplinary Board; (c) confirm the decision of the Disciplinary Board as regards the appellant's wrongdoing, but vary the punishment to that of a lesser one; or (d) reverse the decision and punishment of the Disciplinary Board and acquit the appellant. (5) The decision of the Disciplinary Appeal Board shall be final.” [21] Based on the abovementioned regulations, first respondent in dealing with the appeals made by the applicants shall consider solely on the merits of the grounds of appeal without receiving any further statement or evidence. The documents and/or information available before first respondent would be a copy of the records of proceedings of LTPPKS1 and how LTPPKS1 arrived at LTPPKS1 Decision. [22] In the representation for appeal submitted by Sakthi and Letchumy respectively, it is observed that both of the applicants did not address the issue on the new schools mentioned in the Second S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 Charge preferred against each of them but rather, launched their attacks on the alleged misconducts of SJKTLSR Headmistress and challenged the validity of the Transfer Order against them. The applicants did not address the issue or admit that they indeed are on duty (bertugas) in their new respective schools (except Sakthi who stated that she agreed to report to duty in her new school on a without prejudice basis). [23] The approach taken by first respondent in considering the applicants’ appeal before them are identical upon perusal of the Affidavit in Reply filed by the respondents. The first and second respondents averred that “representasi yang dikemukakan tidak dapat melepaskan Pemohon daripada pelanggaran yang telah dilakukan”. The first respondent and second respondent also averred that “LRTTPP telah menimbangkan rayuan Pemohon sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam surat Rayuan Pemohon bertarikh 29.4.2019 dalam membuat keputusan”. [24] In this regard, this court observes that the 1994 Regulations do not compel first respondent to give their reasons in arriving at the first respondent decision. [25] With regard to the Third Charge vis-à-vis the allegation of insubordination for failure to comply with the Letchumy Transfer Order and the Sakthi Transfer Order, this court alluded to the case of Kamaruddin Sharif v. Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis and Kerajaan Malaysia [2023] 1 LNS 1287 where the court stated: “The law in regard to transfer orders in the civil service is trite. Employment in the civil service is at the pleasure of the Yang di- Pertuan Agong. It is the Government that decides on the transfer S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 of civil servants and the courts do not question whether the transfer is reasonable or not. To interfere with transfer orders would be an usurpation of the Government’s function. A civil servant must obey the instructions issued on transfers and failure to do so would be an act of insubordination. … A civil servant must report for duty in accordance with the transfer order unless before the date an officer is required to report for duty, there is a deferment of the date of transfer or change in the transfer order upon request. If there is none, the failure to report is, for the sake of repetition, an act of insubordination. In such situations it is incumbent on the head of department to take the necessary action against the officer who fails to report for duty.” [26] What can be gleaned from the above excerpt is that a Transfer Order is not reviewable and failure to comply with the same amounts to insubordination. [27] The applicants have in their affidavits averred that they have made several attempts to appeal against the Transfer Order issued against them. The applicants agreed that their first appeal to the Kuala Selangor District Education Office have been rejected. However they proceeded to appeal against the decision for the Transfer Order. [28] Sakthi had particularly exhibited her letters to the Director of the Selangor Education Department and various personnel within the third respondent such as the Head Director of Education Malaysia, the Deputy Education Minister 1, the Head Secretary of Education S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 Ministry of Malaysia, the then Minister of Education, the then Deputy Education Minister 2. The appeal process continued until July 2017. [29] It is noted that the Head of Department of the new schools which the applicants were supposed to report duty to seem to have no issues with regard to the failure of the applicants to report for duty. [30] In their comment to the Disciplinary Appeal Board (first respondent), the Headmistress to which the applicants are supposed to report duty to, had done the following: (i) the Headmistress for the school which Letchumy was supposed to report duty to had made a remark “dipanjangkan” (forward) whereas; and (ii) the Headmistress for the school which Sakhti was supposed to report to has in her comment stated that she is prepared to accept Sakhti and that “pelanggaran disiplin berlaku di sekolah lamanya iaitu di SJKT Ladang Sungai Rambai”. [31] Pertaining to the applicants’ appeal against the Transfer Oder, there was no reply from any of the respondents. It is observed that neither Sakthi nor Letchumy had reported for duty at the school they were transferred to. In the view of this court, the applicants should have reported for duty at the respective schools even if they had lodged an appeal against the Transfer Order. As teacher and public servants the applicants were bound by the Transfer Order. [32] The applicants raised some other issues which could be succinctly dealt. On the issue of proportionality the applicants averred that the S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 punishment meted out are too heavy despite there are certain more heavier offences committed. On this issue, it is appropriate to refer to the case of Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 CLJ 577, where it has been decided that in hearing administrative determination of public bodies are constrained to confirm the findings in disciplinary hearings unless there was a fundamental procedural flaw. In the event the court finds that the charges against the applicants are not a case which is suitable for review, then this particular ground ought not to be addressed. [33] With regard to the issue on conspiracy, the applicants averred that the SKJTLSR Headmistress has conspired with the officers and acted unfairly towards them and that the decision of the first respondent is subsequently been tainted. The applicants however are unable to produce any proof evidencing the same. Therefore, this ground is dismissed by this court. [34] Pertaining to the issue of fiduciary duty, the applicants subsequently complained that the respondents have breached their fiduciary duty in not responding to the applicants. This court is unable to understand how this is relevant in a judicial review application. The complaints are the ones surrounding the SJKTLSR and failure on the part of the respondents to address the same ought to have been determined in another forum. [35] Another issue raised by the applicants is regarding whistle-blower protection. This court is of the considered view that the application of judicial review concerns not on the protection of whistle-blower but rather on the decision making process. This ground is therefore a non-issue. S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 [36] Regarding the ground of legitimate expectation, the applicants also averred that the issue of legitimate expectation shall apply. For legitimate expectation to arise it must be from someone who has a bearing or power over the body to which the legitimate expectation could be expected. The Minister of Education is neither the first respondent nor the LTPPKS1. This court is of the view that legitimate expectation ought not to have arise against him. [37] The applicants have also in their appeal representation slammed the LTPPKS1 for failing to establish an Investigation Committee. The counsel for the applicants cited Thirunavukarasu Angappan v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 604 in support. In my considered opinion, this is a case distinguishable from the case cited by the applicants. In Thirunavukasaru (supra), it involves complex issues which requires the explanation from experts, the expertise of which is not equipped by the Board. In the case before us, there is no issue on complexity other than a whole lump of facts being lump together. Furthermore, it is the discretion of the Disciplinary Committee to decide if an Investigation Committee is required or not. It is therefore not a mandatory requirement or procedure to establish the Investigation Committee. This ground is in the view of this court, untenable. Conclusion [38] This court is mindful this application for judicial review pertains to the livelihood of the applicants. Nonetheless, for the above mentioned reasons, this court is satisfied there is no illegality, S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 irrationality or procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness which would enable this court to grant an order of certiorari. This application for judicial review is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. Date: 22 December 2023 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 Counsel: For the applicant: Vijayaletchumi a/p Muniandy, Tetuan Zarina G.T. Vanan Vijaya Advocates & Solicitors Unit 1E, First Floor, Wisma YPR, No. 1, Jalan 2/87 GA, Off Jalan Syed Putra, 58000 Kuala Lumpur. zgvv.legal@gmail.com + 06 017-2280 529 For the respondent: FC Ahmad Hanir bin Hambaly @ Arwi, Liyana binti Muhammad Fuad Bahagian Guaman, Jabatan Peguam Negara No. 45, Persiaran Perdana Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya +6 03 8872 2000 S/N 6WvgFWq9kEGiFa6jaXiAyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-24NCvC-397-03/2023

PEMOHON CHONG KOK WOOI (bertindak atas kapasiti sendiri dan juga mewakili kumpulan pemilik-pemilik unit kondominium Marinox Sky Villas) RESPONDEN 1. ) ANDREW HENG 2. ) MASMEYER DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (Dalam Likuidasi)

Liquidator’s administrative fee – For execution of memorandum of transfer and perfection of transfer of strata title to the unit owners – Whether fair and reasonable – Whether the court may modify the amount of the fee – Whether unequal bargaining power – Whether liquidator is duty bound to perform the obligation of the wound-up developer – Whether liquidator is bare trustee of the units.

22/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=25d9bba4-582d-41e4-8f39-cbf6a06cec16&Inline=true

22/12/2023 16:20:23 PA-24NCvC-397-03/2023 Kand. 25 S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pLvZJS1Y5EGPOcv2oGzsFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mu-2mcvc—3s7-03/2023 Kand. 25 22/12/2022 mzzmza 1n me H1gh Caurl afMa\aya1n Fenang In the Sake of Penang, Malaysia Ongmaling Summuns Nu PAVZANCV —omo23 In me mailer ol semen 487(4) and 517 Companies Ad ms and In |I1e maller nl Order as Rules of com 2012 and In me mailer of Order 15 me 12 Runes ol com 2012 and In the maner at Masmeyer Devebpmenl Sdn Bhd (Company No. 5a4s7—U) (in L1qu«dauon) Belween Chang Kok W001 (aclmg 1n ms awn capacmy am avsa repressnung ms group of mm ownevs of Mannox Sky Villas Cnndomlnium) .. Plamml And 1. Andrew Heng(L1amda«or1or Masmeyer Development Sdn and; 2. Masmeysr Developmenlsdn and un Llqmdauon) Detendams Gmlmds av De Introducnon 1. Tne F1a1nun (“P”) filed «ms Ongmahng Summons on 30 3 2023 to appeal under secuon 517 onne Companies Am 2016 (“CA 201fl'|aga1nst me aemsmn ml me 15‘ Defendanl (-n1") penammg to the nquuaams admin trafive Vee The sad fee 15 me vemlmeraliun imposed by D1 (or penecung me Iranslev nflhe slrala Wes to me uml cwmers D! a hnusmg develaomenl Drojecl known as Marlnox Sky VIHas (‘housing prujucl") m >LvLAs1v5E5PozvzuszsFg «mm. s.n.1...n.m111... U... m may 1... nrW\ruH|Y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum M1 2 The ongrnatrng Summons herern ts med In a representattve capacity by F, representrng 33 um! owners at the rruusmg protect 3 on 7 11 2023. I allowed the present Originating surnmdne. Here are the grounds cl my dectston Eackgrnund facts 4 F’ and the other unit owners are the buyers and unit owners at the housmg protect. 5 D1 Is the trqurdatnr at the 2"“ Derendant |“Company'], D1 was appotnled In substrtutron M the Offtctal Reoetvar, pursuant to an order at court dated 30.1.2920 6 The Company 15 the developer at the hottstng prqec| The Company was wound up ort1B 7 2019. 7. on 21.7 mo (4 months atter D1‘: appetntment as ltquidalorj, the tndtvtdual slrala mes at the huusirtg pmjeci were Issued by lhe Penang Land OM08‘ lnr perleclturt Into the names 01 the respective uml owners 3 D1 rnvorrned the untt owners 0! the same trtmugh ms tetter dated A 5 2021 And tmpnsed an adrrtlmstraltve tee tn the sum e1RMs,ooo1ar each unit‘ betrtg hrs remuneratren to execute the prescnbsa memorandum ot Irans1er and hi perfefl the transier oi the strata lilies, 9 we hts sohct|uvs' tetter dated 14 9.2021. F requested D1 to reduce the satd sdmtmslraltve tee to a reasdnatrte tevet D1 de ed la do so P am the other aggrieved unit owners at the housmg project then tnittated tms action. The law to sectren 517 ol the CA 2016 reads ‘Any puxon Angnmnfl by IlIYl¢\0VdlCiliI1II Mm: Hquldilor may apply In the Court whtch may eentinn, Mvuu or rnodtry tn. an or lineman eumpturnad olavrd mm such amt: u rt trunks has!‘ 11 P avers Ihat he and the other untl owners 0! lhe huuslng pratect are aggnsved persons They have been Yomed by D1 to pay an admtntslraltve ru pLvLtS1V5EGPD¢vZDGnFg mu. smut nurthnrwm re. .1... M van; r... nngtrrnuly mm: dnuurtnrrl n. .nune mt 44 D1 dtd not prove to the courl that hrs remunemtron Is a tar and reasonabte renection at the work that was ectueuy done, apart trom bare attegatrons There was no proper breakdown or specrtroatron ot the work done Dt's attroeytta are also perett ot any mac! or peraonnet that were detegateo to the rob. or now much time was spent Eearing in rnmo that D1 Is pm on smcl aroot in lhae mallevs srrnpty put, the rnatenat puttorth by D1 are very generat and woatutty tacxrng 45. tn tnrs regard, the observation 0! the Court 0! Appeal H1 ong Kwang Yew Isupra) ta tnstmcltve The Materrar Arroroeo by the Ltautdalnr tn support or no etarrn for Further Rsmrmsraltan [V13[VnlIIatns!anIcssulIIa malwals Itfuvdtd by ma Vrqmdalur rn suppun or ms claim do nut apnnar In be cuntumpnvunuous records or me work unflpmsken Rather may are swmmarte: 0/ work am. or stmpfy cuntum nrne expended mm In: rate: soeonaa but wrlh no spectnoanan of whn vmrir was unaemkur dunrvv that trnre, rar less wny such an amount ortrnre was nmssary Them ts no oxpranatren as to tho rmclfic mm rate: charged, mo mrrmy or In: vnrymg tmts olparaannat Invulvod, nor me rmon why um omrarn rm n-cullry tn shot‘! the nraranat was woarurty vnadaquulu to mu! ah. snsnduni: rreoexsanr ro ename me com to make a ma/tstrc ass-eumenl or the rsmwtsmtlor-r due, rrany by way o/aoomonar rees - 46. P Dotmed out that the strata trttas at tne housmg protect were rssued by the Penano Land ottroe wtlmn 4 nrontne atter Dre appotnlmenl as ttourdetor ot the company Tnta ts wrtnout laktng rntp acoount the ttme laken by the Fenano Land omoe to finally rssue the trues. A7 P contends that D1 trad rn an pmba my cornptetod nrs wurk lass man A months trorrr the date ot hrs aoporntrnent Theretore not much etton trad to be expended by D1 In obtatning |he mles Moreover D1 admtlled In trrs amoayrt In repty amrmed on 3 3.2023 (at paragraph tutat or Ehotoeure 7), that whatever admtmslraltvs wont ne oarneo out was pertonneo on a collecitvs hams. This suggests that there Is ouertaaprng ot work, which wouto mean even tees effurl spent on the matter 45 D1 otarrns that the standard adrnrnrstratrve tee tor executron of the memorandum ottranster Is apnrcxrhratety 1*/.. to 2% of the purchase price Frrstty, We is a bare auegatron that was unsupstanttateo seoondtyr Wtthk tne aomrnretratrve work to execute the menrorandunr or transfer ts ourte standard regarotees ot the yatue at the properly Thus, the trquroators aonrrnrstratrye tee In tnrs regard snouto not be based on a peroentage of t r em hLvLtsw5EEPO:vzoszxFq «war. a.r.r lurthnrwm be u..a a my r... oflntnaflly arn. dnuartml vn mutta v-mat Ihe purchase pnoe. The remuneraliun ougm in be delerrnmed based on me aomplexny 0! me work done and lhe Mme consumed. A9. in Kumpulalv Sepakal Korvsu/I y Cherish spnngs Sdn Bhd [mm 1 LNS 2804‘ me Hugh com reyscxea the Iiquldatufs vee at RM4 million fur ubcauung a manke1 consent as bamg unjuslmed The Hugh Court noted that me wark done [or each um! Is me same: 7451 Alrerdue mrmdsutrorv snna above svrdsnca and documenls, mo mm me In: chuyod by 2». Lluuldnnr to be oxccuivu and ma: ms 2;: chug: nu ma admlnlshtian In plus a man mung in hr me am. as being Mn/ustlllnd Ind enemy Irbltnry rm ixuctss aldrsastlon by me L/aurdalw nor: mus! name examsm unnasonamy and as slalod In ma Cnrpnrahorv Sdn End [supra] quotvng c v e Sntemrgvcla Del Cnnuw s A V Londurr Smanlshrn Owners‘ Mumsr Insurance Aasoaatmn Llr.1{Thc ‘\/a:m1usurJose'[ /1779) 1 Uayd Ran 557 what: n ma lane! u was new rm. mmmon law plmcvplu spa/reams la me axtmsl ul a contractual drswelron mduda faunas; reaannab/even, Dona me: and absence u/ m:smrec!»omnMw' m) n 15 am that me Lrqmdalav ms In can-y am a yenmnon mums: and ms nmsssnes Io/flowing rnun ma some wmch my mom tom: «ms and that u rs man hmcvron Io adrrunrslar me allalrs olme Dev/elopcr Cnmpany and accammgry bovmwmg Mo words arms com omppsa/ m we Carporalran Sdrv arm (supra) ‘ms nmssny av aparymq to ma oclanflant [Land mm M nur case) rm us consent is any a msllsraladrmmsmsllvz expedmncy The work m be done for um Ind tvuy mm r: 2». um. [£91 Fmm ms labmatnn ms by me Appllclnls at sxluml 6527 m znausms 2 ms uqumuu wwfid he ezmmg the sum a(RM17,225,392 mm the uuoled raa oI2% zldmm lee and Vsltmg ms nu ma um yamsls mm mmrssted (ms mm ma documents In exmml as . 29 afencloamw 2 non. oln-r davslonsrs /n respect al me transfer or mm mes n other pmncfs when ma nnllye mug. In: . sfmllu ldmrnlxlnfln Iuncllnrv I5 Rmao - su. D1 tried Io justify me requested remuneration by snag-ng that the Company nas rm mnds. Vn rebuttal‘ P pointed oul man me Company nas cash at the bank in ms sum 0! RM581yD54 14 at lhe date of me oemmencemem anus wmdmg up,PfurlI1ev pointed am that one company sun has ssse|s in me amount I)! RM233y827 as as at 30.7 2022, even xnuugn n was wound up on 13.7 2019 uespue bemg cnauenged, D1 um um adduoa any documentary ewdenoe to expkun the Company‘s lands, or purpoded Vack unereov Leave at court Is no: rg @ as aga 5! the company 12 am puLAsw5E5PDzvzaszxFg “Nana saw nmhnrwm as HIGH w my .. mn.u.y mm: dnuumnl VI mum puns‘ 51. D1 contends that leave ol eoun Is requved to pmceed agains\ the wound - up Company I drsagrse. 52 This achun Is pnmamy an appea\ agamsuhe amuum o1 RMEDDO per unn unposed by D1 I’ Is not cnauengmg |he power av D1 to xmpose ms remuneranon. Aust the quantum 53 lmponanfly. were is no reuel prayed ior agaunsx me Company Orany nammy eougnuo be fastened an the Company was assexs The company 45 a mere nommal uetenuann in me msfant acnon. As such, no leave of cum 15 required [See the Hwgh Cmm case av Boardroom Advvsory sun Bhd v Byard sp1ra/ Mm Sdn End 5 015 [2019] 1 LNS 1447;. Leave oi caurl Is nc| reg ed as ags\nsHhe1“Defendan\ 54 D1 men sschon 45s(2y ol me me CA2D16(a argue (hal leave olcaurl ws requvea to proceed aga|ns| mm meagree. 55 seanian 455(2) unne CA zms reads 12; The axuvmsa ev um lwquwdatav m . wmdmg up av me oaun av ma Dewar: wnlerved av ma uchon 45 sum-n lo we wnlml n1 me Cami anu any uednnr av oanlnhulmy may npmy m me ceun mm respecl In any exams: or proposed exercise at any olmose news- 56 wrule secnon 436(2) 0! |he CA 2016 pmvmes mm me powers of the Hquldamr shall be sumeec to ma comm! 01 me eeurl. n a\sc provides (hm me pamea who are required |o seek leave In respect 01 lbs exercise or mase pawers are credflms and oonlnbulanes omy. 57 I SUDDDSE sermon 486(2) DI the CA 2013 iimbls the persons who requue leave of noun, because u|uma1e\y umy me credwlors and con1nbu|ones are «he ones who have a leg male eves! in me msnnouuon 01 me company's assecs. \n this inslance however, P and me other unit mvnsrs dc not have an Wales! In the assets 09 the COITIDENY. And therefore do not need ‘save to proceed. 55 Vn suppufl of his argument. D1 relies on me Federa! coun ease of N Chanlhiran Naganpan v Kan Che ./en [2023] 5 MLRA 247 That case however Is msunguisnabxe because (21 In N cnanmnan, me Mzmm was a conmmnory who davmed that we nqmuauu had «am In penonn ms cum, nnanmy sukmg ms vamnvll Wheres: m we amen: Onglnalmg sumnmne, P and ma mharuml miner! « 3 m nLvL1sw5E5P0evzeazsFg «ma s.nn nmhnrwm a. met! a mv a. annnnv -mm: dnuamnl vn muua v-max me ml creflilms or oorilribulonsx Yhry are persons wno wave nggnaved by me decliion Ill fixing me nmmml M RMBDW 5217 mm as me remuneration iorvsfle-rlian oi ine Iruns1evolIha mu ones. (by in N cnenmn ine Issue was whalharlsave ufumm VS requmad m procssd in an neiion io iemove a iquiaaxpr Whemas me present Onginalmg Summons m an appeei ag me: we oeoison mgavdmg vemunemmn, where no removal oi me Ilfiulflamf is souum ion and (C) i: we me oinei unn owners ave msvely seeking lot deciamtuvy omens in nonisune quarmmi Mme adminimmiveieeimposed me am lwldlsmpl ine HflUida|ufl(i a DI‘sHa:koVadmin\sler1ng|he assets oime mum I up Company Thus. memei me email reduces D1 1 Ismunerimn ar M1. wiii vial awed me usk oi administration ov mu Cnmvnny ms is no: a case whale P is saying mi in II no! enmseo in any remurierauon ai eii innieeo P IS saying man m V! emiueo In an nmoulll Ina! 15 fans! and more reesonaoie 59 In order up qualify ior an appeai under secupn 517 oi me CA 2016, P and me over unn owners wouio have to bring memseivee within the oenninon pi aggrieved persons. Unlike crednois and ccinlributories who require me leave oieoun, P and me mher unii mwiers can cummenoe we anion wilhnul needing me ieave onne com Provided they are classified as being aggrieved by (he an or decision of the hquldalor 60. i reler in ins coun oi Appeai case at Angkuisra Sdn Ehd v Julimba sun and ; Anal [2016] 5 CLJ 597 at 604 — 605 which held: we: Our s 279 one: 125 has an evurvalnnt pmvmans in 3 15915; al sngnsn Insolvency Act 1956 MnP7iaIs0II‘s Law of Company — Liquidation are sdn by Andrew R Keay .1 pp ma io am memes. me pvovismns as iuliuws me [Imsdrclmn oonreneo by 5 V68(5) W Ivlslion In wmwlsory /ifluidatrofl {mu ta vuhmlary inumnpn impugn s 112; can oniy no emcuea M mnsvquence oun appucnnpn by s peisori was is agynma by an an amrsslafl cw dactsnori pmm iioumm Tn: cllssrc mnmon 15 mai U‘! Exp Sidtbotnfimn where James L../ axmsseo Ills wew mat, for a pvlsun io bu Iggriavcd, mei nsrsari mus! D1. 3 man no has smhmd 2 land gmunc. man ngllnu wnom a dlcltlon h-.1 boon pmnnunced wmcli wu mon,:uiiy manna Mm oi Jumulhlng or mongmny rvtuud him someming, or wmngiully uremu his lllle lo mnmim; Area included is mmnono who Is directly meme ny ma exercise ol a iiqma-mm pawn um unmwm ww/:1 not bu lblo la cnnllenqn mi :4 sm pLvLlS1V5EEPD¢I/ZuGnFg “Nana e.n.i nuvihnrwm be mad m vuflj .. nflginlflly MIMI dnuuvinnl VI mum puns! cxuclsl orpowen sum as a person alluded by a msuemr 0! company wonorry The any/nrarvl nes the arm: orprowng me: me daemon Mme /rquu-tam: was wrong and ne or she should demanslrale m a supponrna alfidawl lhzl me aPD/matron has man! by seurna om n ma ermeyu rears wrrrcn snow mvs Ass to an argument . Nan apphcsltorv can as orougnr unasr 5 mars). me zauni: enrm-4, inn. cimumxlzncal so dlmlnd, in unda . mnsncfion -mind mm by . Irourrmor ~ 61 1 am eeusnea men P and the emer urm owners are Indeed aggneved persons. D1's rnrppsmpn a! the amount a! me aamrnrsnreuve tee nee arrecuy affeded mem. D1 nee remseo merr request [or a lower sum. Urfless may pay the admlnlslrauve lee demanded by m, |hey wru be deprwed ul en strata li\Ies men We |o thew vespecfive umts wiH oe affecled Whether the Walrmfl has Vocus sxanm |o sue on behau ol the other unm owners 62. D1 chaHenged |ha| P has lafled to show thal he has the locus Hand! to sue un behaif of me other unil owners I Donswder INS a desperate and fume argument to derarl this aaron Evrdence nas been shown mm P was grven aurnorny by me o|her uml owners F had exhiblled thew sale and purchase agreemenIs.wge1her wrm the warranls lo sor duly execureo by me 33 mm owners. wrucn proves men P has been grven due surnonry lo cammenoe this achon doc and on behalf M the other um! owners. 63. Moranven D1 acknuwkadged me exrscenoe 0! me see and purchase agreenreru by P and aneureras joint purchasers onnerr will D1 are not deny me aumenucrry oi the omer 32 sale and purcnase agreemenrs 64. Tne Originating Summons rrerern rs deariy rnmmed as P represermng nrrnsew and me other unI| awners. They are pemee who were afleded by me aeersren 0! D1 on rerrrunerauon They wvll be affecied by me oeersron ml (his mun in respect ml me declaratory orders soughl lur mus, |l'us rs a proper represeniauve pmoeedmgs under Order 15 mIe12 Dflhe Rules :2! Own 2012 Farr and reasonable rsmunerallon 1 5 sm |>LvLAsw5E5Poer/zeszsFg “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm re p... e may r... mn.u-y mm: m.r.n y. mum WM as For me reasons above, -I IS my conchAsIon IneI |he admInIsIlaIIve tee uf RM8,0DD per um! Imposed by D1 IS unlav and unreasonable. The quesuan men enees es to what wumd be a law and reasenable amount of vemunzvamon {or B1 66. F adduced evidence that other parka who named am the same tasks, such as me Insolvency nepanmem and me Compames Commlsison of Malaysia, only Impose a Iee or RM500 In contrast. D1 oflered no yardsuck lur sImIIerwer« done by another was met. 57 m mereIy seId um 56 unil uwners eI me housing prdIec1 had pald m ms remunsranon oI Rmamn per um, and Iheremre the sald emeum Ia . am me: Is ralher SImp|is|Ic and VS not e vahd delenoe because In In Ienflered no aocumemmy pmdrouuer. peymem when chaflalvgad, an even I «me me ss uml owners nmy raprnem a «meme (nvprox1mamIy VB‘/.I ewe mm number dc umli (Jon, and Icy Ihose wwners may have had liven awn reasons Var paying me tau! sum in DI For Instance‘ mun ummevs wm wemed Id msoose er llmr pmpemes uruemlym coma haw succumbed m m s demanfl ea In Kumpulan Sspskst Kansull (supIaL me HIgh Cour! held Iha\ RM 1300 pet Iransler I5 Ian and reasoname [5471 7hntDlmg me case andlollowrllg the customary mepketpraclmes assnown ta Int: cm m we saId sxmml G5 - 2:: of Endoame 2 and applymg ma Carporalmn San End (supra), e In! lee emmooo nu em and ovary tmnslet at me me parcels as payed for by me NzuVIcarI1sIsIrI my vnw e my and masonabh anmarvl to n. charaed - 59 In |IgM of ms abavs. I am oHhe mew man a sum 09 RMI.aoo per uml IS fair and reasunabka. Puhhn: II can: one 70. I Lake IudIeIaI nuuue me: owners of propemes W prujeds hum by enem devempers who go IMO hqmdahan belore suala mes are Issued, have been at me mercy ol pm/ale I undslors The Nauonal House Buyers Assuclallun has been yocaI on (ms mailer, callnng an the govemmem |o imemene Io prmect me owners Imm hqmdalers wha arbivarily Impose Iees for pervecuen ol me uensIer av suave mes. Is sm pLyLIsw5E5PDevzeszxFg «we. s.mI ...m.mm e. med w my .. nr1gIn|HIy mm: dnuumnl VI mum puns! 11 Reoently, lhe govemmenl came up wmn guidehnes lo alienate such conoems The men Minrsler olEcanomy Issued an mslmclxon wmcn caps lhe iee charged to home buyers at RMSUU‘ for mnums that re\a(e to undertaking me ‘Vast mile‘, \.a., peflsctmg ms nans5eraf me strata was to me mm awners. 12 The vulluwmg announcement daled 7112022 by the Nations! House Buyers Assuulalion was exhibiled: 'FEMUDAH enablrmas mac Vlquldalors zvvmnled hy MDI [Le the Malaysian Daplrlmonl oflnzvlvcnq/]canIIu| mugs more man mane The Nmmnal Ham Euyem muneuun mm) would ms 10 nnenk PEMUDAH neunea by vs Memen (Economic) Dam sen Musuva Mohamed mm on v am vane Dale DVIIAIII1)/Sec mane eJ.oel\enIde::vsmn an 2s 9 zazzvm Mm In rem m vflvats \Iqutda|uIs‘ esvamafly mose auems appmmea hy MDI V where nsnueronn, the ‘as: warm to nmnswyars snau he puma a| Rmsou om mnamns mm mm. In urvderuklng we ‘last mI\a' The appomlad aaams ave. hmtever, .IIlawm m chug: .u.snmns.x chllgll sm axplnsex «mum. mcurrm Farexamnle wn smmmns where xne maslertme/s has been Vast Vodgemem Ma muse vulnm makm ol slalulnry fleclaraunn car remaeemen: oi Ime/s and app!-canon cu: Ils new Issuance and wnacmr relalad to u Such addmonal chargus mun bu -euonams and (Iansuarum. Tms vs .n une mm Mm s unen| see an: axpansu av mason bung me Lwqusdalnfi vses or Gan vennna. nenee, we nape all awems / uqumum mmmy mun MDI‘s daemons. .n r:oHabom|\un wnn PEMUDAN u all nous dawn co smcl mmmlance new menus ruqwuanm who in unama m apptahend and emhraoe me (ask 21!!-at pncmg shwld Wacsmly fleume we apwImm|n|' Concmsbn 73 For me reasons above, x aflcwed me Originalmg Summons herem. I granled one following orders: (a) a aecmuon that me uqumeuors adm\n\sIraI1ve vee ol mama Der um! Vs unraasonama. to) me I-«manor: admmIs|ra|wl 751 $7130 I): me an the vale of am ‘can per unn, m m sneu he pmrnmea mm Vmmsmg any mnanon on me execunan at me memovandum av lunflennlavouvollhe unn nwners‘ (a) um um arwnurx ave at may 10 appoml |hawown soncums‘ ans (9) on man release or .nsm.u ms nominated snhcnurs. namely Menu 1 Ihamma La Assnmales, to velease me strum (miles In me unnawners Mmm « 7 sm ptvL1sw5E5Po<v2ua:sFg «mm. s.nn lunhnrwm s. U... w mm s. nflmnnflly mum: flnuamnl VI .nune Wm! 1 day: harm the pnymem M Ihe Rmwou admmnstrxlwe lee‘ wvlhaut payment to the ma nominated soucmm 14. 1 made no nrder as |n costs Dated 12 December 2:123 X Quay Chew Soon Judge mg» Conn or Malaya, Penang cwu Dwlsnon NCVC 1 11 an Klmw vm Nan mosszsa c ran a. new forms Plalrmfl Jacky Lox Yap Leona and may Wang xm nan (Mtssrs 7 v m. 5 Famvsrsflurlm Deiandanll :3 sm puLAsw5E5PozvzuszxFg «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnumml VI mum pom! fee 0! RMB,D00 per mm, being (rans1er 01 lhe unil owners‘ slrala s rerrrrrnerarrun lur perfecliun at me les 12 Under secrron 517 0! me CA 2016, I have me power ro corrrrrm. reverse or moarry |he sard arsmrnrsrrarrve I99 0! RMa\Dwy r! I rmnk rr Just to do scr. The rouowrng provrsrons arms CA zms are arso penrrrsrrr 13 secrron 437(4) of me CA 2015, wmch reads -:57 Exams: and wmrororrrqurusrorrr puwers m Suhpscl la rnrs Dlvrsmn, rrr. Viqurdmnv snsrr use his own drscvelron rn Ihe marugemenl or are rrrrrrrs rlnd pmneny or Inc company and rne flrsmhulnn or us asseIs' 14 Section 479 01 |he CA 2016, wmch reads: "479 Remuneralrorr al rrauraarors rn wrnarna up by Conn rzr Ailquidalovulivnrman rnrr omcrsr nrrcrrrvrrrurau beemlllw rn veuw: sum lshly ur vlmunlvrllmn by wiy rrr parclnligs or ulllerwwe :3 rs dnllnnlnul by 1:) an arrreenrenr between me rrqu-aarur and me eommman or mlpeclrun, rr any‘ m where were rs m agreement or where were rs no mmmrllee or rnsnewarl. s resnhman passed an r meeting cl erearrars hy is rnarovuy or no! rsss man three — lmmhs rn value and one 7 new rn number cl rne cmdnurs present rn Person or by Druxy am: voting al rnrr nrrrrrrrrrg and man dabls naw been admnted to vote, wrrrar maelmg snsrr In canven-d by We hquldiluv by a nuke: In such cradnm In Much nulls: shafl be attached rr smemenl cl srr rseerprs and exnendrlure by me uarrrasrnr and me amounl ahemrmemmn scugm by rrrnr or (0) mm aureernenr ovdelenmnalrun under paragraph «aver (DHar|I, rm corrrr - 15 Seclmn 51:) ol the CA 2015, which reads ‘aw Conllnl M corrrr rmr llflulflalnri m In. crrrrn srrsrr uku wgninncl Mlhl cunduclafli Man and rrr hqulflalm does no| Varllilmly peflnrm hr: dunes rrra observe rne prescvrbed refiuhemenls nrme requirements olme cm or rrsny mmuarnr rs made ro me Caurl by any cvedrlnror wnmbulory or by me Omcral Recenter rn reganr In rm ound\r:1,me Cuunirull Inquln Inn: on rnarur and an Inch acllnn u an. Conn rrrirrrrr m- 3 sm ptvLrsw5E5Po<v2r:a:sFg “Nana s.n.r luvrhnrwm rs. met! In mm r... rnrrn.rrr MIMI dnuamnl VI mum v-mar 15 From me above pruvis\ons,|cans<(1erIJ1alt|1e acuons and wnuucc M a hquma|or Is sumecl lo me scrutiny uv the court A hqmdamr mus\ ac! reasanalfly m the drscharge 0! ms duties A uqmaaxor cannal veal any uemon canlerred upon mm, as gwmg mm a cane blanche to act accuvdmg |u ms wmms am vancy. 17 In Gema Malkstmg Sdn End v Holwerbeve/apmem Sdn BM [2015] 1 LNS 294, me mgr Court had his |n say regardmg seclinn 232(3) o! the Companies Act 1965 iwhnch is now secuon 479(2) ov me CA 2015). '[1B]FurlherIIrs cludy nan above under s 232m or m. CA ma: mm are mm Ullfuunl paths: or ermlkas that am lrsltd In qulrlntlo that m. mmunlrllnzn chine uqumanors wm llvays nu .q.m.m- Ind Iall. These are: Ia! me commmta a/mwmm mu; m aadrlurs nmgn me mamxswsenng and [cl In. court‘ 15 Discretiuns aflomsd by suume mus\ be exemssa fairly and lescnalfly Vn Law Lran Koon 3 Anal v Meng Fang Rsally Sdn and & Anal [2004] 3 cu 391 at 397, me Hxgn Court said “ sa mm a statute mar like 5 mm 0/ma me, give: u drscmlmnary power, mm din-rlflon must be uoversod may my mmmy. n mus! also as exerctsed acmmmg m common Slflll and/uslrcs u mus! be‘ m slmfl. uarctsed ammmg to rtcagnlzud pvmcrules ormmr msmnon n Carma! n. unused ictoldmg m mo -mm whrm mapm o/me parsun to whom ms enlrusledon ma mumnnan ms! he rs dtsnmst’ 19 The com ol Appeal m Emlpnma Sdn Bhd v Wonderful Castle Sdn am1[2o2a] 1 ms was spoke at me murfs du\y to sxamme whemev a hquida|ur's rarvumelauon :5 (air and reasonable. The court at Appeax he\d -1331 m. wimlrng up mun holds a smumy my m Ix-mlnl wnemet mu lmaunk nnhe delecmlned nmunmzsan is in an hlr and nasonabk rm duty to axamms and dslorrmna wnemer a remunerztron m Va» ma reasonable had to be r.1Isv.VIavgad[uL1»c:ou:4y “ 2o Funhev, me Oourt m Appsax relerred to the following guiding pnncxples my delermmanon o! a hquidalofs fair and reasonable remuneration 725/ w. also m m mm to me Srngapom Mgn Cour! daemon in Re Emu Cow Ltd (In Prwwsmnal Lnzmdslmnl (No 211290412 sue es: (Re am -5 case) when Jusnce v K Rajah has spefl cm! In: gmdmg pvmcrme: to be taken We iwounl m A sm puLAsw5E5PD¢vzuszxFg «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! aelemlmma a /all andrszscnabfie remunemnon /or .9 rr-zmaaror The qumrmss as stated m Re Eaan '5 cm can be summanssd as Valtuws a wlmd comreouuion, who! amaranc. Ind Vlqurdalalnauvladn In an. runner, I: timt mm the mwarlanne mu vary from case to case, from being a Dussrb/I mlrcal (actor m one case ra lusl another matter for oonsvderalmn m anomen c M: rains, m an ulzsancs oumpcamu ywflalmas rt Carma! up awsptud .r rm mu. and mu mm In an duturrnirmdl: Ixirlndnllunlbh by m. mm ammr. an mmpltxlly or olherwrse alrhe case, a the assrmrrce, renamed by me employees mm. M: umrrmors nnrr sunlecz to rival mat, a mu sauna 5/ mm, :1 is mupmlznt In understand the Iurrctrons and rasflunslmlmas allhs lfumdarur r the arrorrrssmerrr rtmasl have some measure olresllarnl anddfsclplfne on now rm mms an ncnupo-1 and moan:-a fol, and g m summary, Itmmarn: npsrv /ur m. cumtm any mum in ma; wnemer me mm «m the rermmeralron ought In be an 3 Irma masts, . reahsanon basu M an H)! — enmmpasama Dams abmmrna all or a oomhmslran or me mlsna msrmnea, and ms qmsms are not rmmrrrams rule.’ 21. The burden av proof lies on a lxquidalorlo prove all re\evanllac1uvs m delerrnmmg a law and reasor-awe remunerauon. In Emwrma (supra) the Courl oi Aunesl new ‘I361 Azlome human olpmor, mm mm Vzwmanhs burden Is army: on In: Ir-zmmr to wove all nlwam factors In dnttrmlnlny a filrarrd rusnnablv umrmmvon my arm: an ma Lmntlnles snunmaled. ms cfiear that m. prim: eansidontfon in umrmming rm nmurrmuan a! ma liqurrlnor is mr u should M Mr um rusarrme - 22 In Perm-nahan NCK Sdn Bhd v Mega Sakn sun Bhd [2005] 1 LNS 162013 Hugh com sam -nmrcrmes lav Delermmmg Remuneratron afuquntalors /n the aldmary mrrrse, ma prams or mung ramunsmnon comes down 10 stsenllal/Y lo ensrrrrnq mar me work upon wmcll the charm was hand was work undunaksn rrr ma comsa al aamrnrsrrarron, and ma! m. amount clamlafl fur havmg dam marwarmr mu rilsnnlhllrawmdfovrt rm.../mm nrmm 5 sm hLvLAsw5E5PozvzuaxsFg “Nana sm-1 nmhnrwm .. U... m may r... mm.u-y mm: dnuamnl VI murm v-max alnmarues wnn me lfqufdawr to show M-k rm r-munuanon emrnoa rs [ustlflabl ma bcnchmark m we assessment prmas rs falrnlu and rnllnnlbll ass 77:; Com! need no: acnspl wnax rs submmod at «be. mine but writ carsluw scvubnfze me Iacls pram war. :1, m dccrdmg what men or ma Iemumranon erannaa/s nan-ambit rrdjunt am. The Court wu/nomnnarymapunarwnar >5 santas dons rs abru- 23 From me abava aulhonhes, the recumng meme mat Ianness and reasonableness are me nnponan: cmerla when scruu ng a uqmaanors rernuneranon A llquidalar mus! be able lo jusmy ms remuneration haaea an that benchmark Daemon 24. 1 agree wnn P that D1‘s rernunerauon m the sum of RMa,uoo lor each mm \s uniawr and unreasonable, luv the louowmg reasons 1.) were 15 no equalwy ol Davgamlrvg parwv belween P and D1. In ngm ov me aflrmmslrallve tee Imposed by m bemg non — neguhahle and determined am! a alrwlnlv maaremn an m. as Ihe luquniamv onne Company‘ a duly lmund In QIYVY out msduhei ana ohflualmns at cm company under une sale and purchase aqvemams and cne Hmmng Dsve|npm:n\(Camm\mv1 Ucensmg)A.c1 was man In lhlx Instance. «ne aauance av me sxraua War and ms alsculmn M ms memorandum Mlmnsievlo peflscl nna We Ivansfarhu me um|owr\e|s‘ my upnn veoelpl ol the «nu pmwaae pnce. me necenaanxs heouma a bare uus1ee or me mun: wn me musma Dm1ec1mlevourulP and the amer um| mmsvt m camvnl use In: strata uues m his bomwon as a mnsom lo dsmand nor an unreasaname sum cl RMs,ono per um| m am nas no mm In nnpose a mndmun on ma unn owners In pay .1 sepmaue is: to his Mmmalen suhalml, Msssrs 1 Thmuml e. Aesacxanes, and (:17 nraamaa»-us ave hem! many evldencam snomne ac1ua\wmk done. and In pmve nne casxs and expenses manned by m, la may the vequesled mm alRMB.0flfl [:21 mm D1 wm be wnnhed In me nune ac appnmrnaneuy mu mnlxm a an am unn wwners at me housmg prwam Mada me paymenlm mm blmfly 25. Here ws me expwanauan (a sugnmcan mfihnoeofgawer s an puLAsw5E5PoevzaszxFg “Nana em.‘ nmhnrwm be b... m M», .. angwnnuuy mm: dnuumnl VI mum puns! 26. V! cannot be disputed lhal Ihera Is a s\gnmcan| imbahance of power bewveen P (and ms amsmnnawners) and m, In hghl onne loI|owmg' la) m was gamma In -mm lhe deViul|lIqmdn|cr 2. me Omcm Rsoewan mlhau|me knowbflge nl Pam me nmerumlowners Swmpiy pm, may had no say In D15 appmnlmenl, my havmg taken Lwerlhe awaun av ms Dumpany. m his custody Mme sham was «mm lhu Land om Ac) m n me only versan who has me aulhamy Io exscule me memorandum oi vansien m me: m pefled me uansver ov lhe man: War In In: unn owners The comm! ac me adlvwuei ul me woum - up Cumplny n vsslld In m as Its hqwdator No on: M D1 can an bribe Company. and my P and me mm mm owners are required \a pay D1‘s remunerahun cmemuned at his sme mscmmn 27. Tne courts nave mtsrvened In snuauons o1 inequahly in barga g powel. Snmlar to «he present case‘ the Conn of Appeal in KAB Corporalmn sun Bhd & Arm: v Masts: Platform sun and [2019] 1 LNS 975 lound that there was a signmcanl Imbalance ac power between the plalrmlfs and me deiendam m man case And -mewenea lo momly the 1% admmlsnalwe lee charged by me liqmdalnr 2s The com oi Auneal new mat a no Is «an and reasnname: al admmisualwe fee u1RM5oo -my /rv Ims mxlancs, um n . ugnmunx lmbalanct olpomr between mu pmnmr: and me defendant Fm, me defem1anI's wvmen eorvsanl 1.x ruqwlnd befom the plamlms can carry out any transaction nun.» Dlficu um! Sceamfly the p/ammfs am qmud In pay on Idmininr-hvn In, m nmaum in no dttormlmdatlha an-na.nr. -Dmlutu discrulion Thus, mems no equality vibuiwininy pawn: bslwian lhs nms Fumvsr the defendant new rm mmnan: paw ha: . dear conflrcl olmteresl because u rs sxerclsmg us pawcr In make aecvsrons wmu. mm mm the plamlvfls Ind mu rn such cwwmslancss‘ :1 rs m our wew necessary to rmgly . tom: 5: to haw the conhiclual drrwubon muy as uavasad, m an. aonlul 1:! an. spa and Hauas Rules [35] For me nxegomg meson; we are or the new ma! a nonmur mnmmmm he olRM5W.00 rs Ialrnnd reasonabll V b The 1“ Dsdenaant ws slalulorll bound to car cu\ m um and obhgahans at me Comgany 7 sm ptvuswvszavozvzutaxxrg «mm. smuw ...n.mn .. HIGH m M», .. mn.u., mum: mmn VI mum pom! 29. The purchasers dl the unlls ln lhe hpuslng prdlea had entered lnlo sale and purchase agreenrenls wllh lhe Company as developer under me HDA The HDA IS a suclal leglslalron rneanl lo pvclecl purchasers and lhose wllh weaker bargaining power. (see me Federal ooun case nl PJD Regency Sdn and v Trlbunal Tunluzan Perrrbelr Ru!-rlah & Allm and arher appeals [2021] 2 CLJ 441) so under sermon :4 dl lhe HDA, ‘houslng developer ls deflrled la Include a llquldaldr or lne houslng developer It reads ‘muslng developer‘ means any perwrl, body av persons‘ pompany, mm m saclely (hy whalevev name eessnnadl, em arwrllch engages mar came. on M underlakes or causes re bl urldenikerl a l-lnuslrlg daveldpmenl. and n a case whnru ma hon g omlapsrls undsr llquluanen. cludnsa pesan ovbudy palrllod by a aaun M mmpel m punsdlcharl lo pa lhe vmvlslonlal Ilquldalov av Ilquldamrlar rm hauslnu as Inpu‘ 31. under me HDA. lhe derrn n ul‘hcluslng developer includes D1, who sleps lnle llle anoes ol the wound — up Company It lolluws lhal D1 rs bound ld samplers lne aeluncl developers dunes and opllgalions under lhe sale and purchase agreements and lhe HDA. ln lhls lnslanee, to ensure that me slrala lllles are duly regis1er2d In lhe names 0! me Dumhasers 32. such obllgalidn agreernenl enlered slales sel cm In clause ll ol lhe sale and purchase u between llle Cnmpany and me purchasers. II 'Separale slrala «us and lrsnslerel nus H (17 me 'Prapnelor l Vendol shall al ns min ml and expenses and as upadl|lnusly as posslhle, apply «or subdlvnlurl at me sald Bnlldlllq ar land lnlsnded rsr suhdlvlslurl mm pamls, as me case may he, be as la Dblnm lhe lssue ola separate alralaurrela lne sale Parcel under lhe snala mes Am 1985 lzl Upon lhs rssuanee or lhe slrala ms to we um Parcel and sunlan la rue plymem of ms numrlasa pass by me Purchaser In me vendor rn accordance wllll suaslauss ml and the observance or all rhe lerrns and wmllmns nsrern pm‘/Idea, ms Vsvldnl shall wmlln lwemy 7 one 121) days, uscme nr cause me Pmprlelorlnuxncmu u d and nulstrabln Muvloundum am-ansrsronns said Fun: I n luour M are Pnrchaur and nder shall rem-d an um. Iontlhnrwllh ln um: ml. to «he Funzh Ir’ 33 under seclion 220 pl lhe HDA. the developer ls unly allowed In charge a lee ol RMSD lo venly and cdnrlrrn lne beneflclal inleresls ol a purchaser. ll ls noleworllly lhal lhe sale and purchase egreernenls and s srn pLvLlS1V5EEPDzl/ZuGnFg «war. Smnl msrlhnrwlll as u... a mm a. nflglrrnllly anrl. dnuurlnrrl VII nFll.ING pnml lne HDA ones not prcvlde lor lne rmposlllon 0! an aarnrnlslralrye lea Dy D1. 34 Under lne onnerole ol oare lruslees D1 augm In oomplele lne perleolion or me re lrensler or no oosls lo P and me o1ner unil owners Even under seclron 22D ol lne HDA, lne law only allows a lee ol RMSD. ‘lnal sard. P aoaeplr. lnal D1 may be rernuneralea, but In a rear and reasonable amount (1: Tne 1-‘ Delendanl merely a have Irus|ee 35 ll ls unolspuleo mm P and me orner unil owners had pald the lull purchase Drlee lo lne company lar lnerr reepeenve unrls rn 1ne housing pmjecl upon reeelpuneraol. lne company. and by sxlenslon DI. became a bare lmslee cl lne urllls ln lne houslng pmlecl pendlng lssuance ol me slrala mas. (See the Federal Oourl case 01 ran ong Ban y Teah Kim Hang [21115] 3 cm 193 al 205; 36 D1‘ wrro sleopeo mm the shoes 0! me Company, has a Dcntlnulng oolrgsllon to ensure Ihal lne srrela rules are duly regrslereo In me name ol the urlll owners. Wnhoul rmoosrng unnecessary burden on me unn owners D1 halr nD nghl Ia hold the slrala Illles as ransom Ia demand for N3 remunerallon ol RMBDDO per IJNL 37. Funnel, D1 also nas no vlghl lo nnpose a condllmn on lne unuowners Io appclim his normrraleo sol lors, Messrs T Tharuma A Assoclala. (or the oreoaranon onne memorandum ol Iranslev And be reouueo lo pay a separate velllrlg lee 10 hrs nominated solrcrlors Tne uml owners are enlmeo lo apuorm men own solrorlors. lllhey so wrsn, wnnoul also havlrlg lo pay D1's nomlnaleo sol: ors 33 Mel only um D1 dlc1aIe nis own rernuneralian, ne also impased a seoonu set or snarges upon lne u owners payable (0 ms nom a|ed so lcl urs A separate yenrng lee rs lo oe pald to Drs rlomlnaled sol ms appears lo be lor lne same work done by D1 Which Is to yenfy lne owners onne unrls. and rnarcn lne slrele mles lssuea 1o lne releyenl urlns. 39. In a lefler dated 5 7.2022 by Messrs T Tharuma & Associates, the said nDmlna|ed SD“ ms slaled — "Our less for perfeclian of (he said Trarlsler wrll be 50% onne scale fees as pmwded rorln me Slxlh Schedule or [he So/rollers’ Remuneratlan oroer zoos exclusrve cl ssr ano dlsbursemerll.“ (See Exhlbll H al P's affidavll emnnea 2262023. Enclosure 5) rn DLyLlslv5E5Poer/zeszsFg “None smul Iurlhnrwlll .. .1... a may r... nflnlnnllly mm. m.r.n VI nrlurm war 40 \n INS regard, Ifmd |ha( DI has acted unreasonably If his n0mma|ed eanbnors has \o be remunerated (or me work wh ch was supposezfly me rob be m, men mere >5 no baara rbr D\‘s rernunerauan wmch na demands cbrwaraaxy W D\ juslifies ms vsmng aa ms job, men ne has no ngm (0 impose an the unu uwners |u agam pay anolhev set of vetung lse Ia nrs nommaled solicitors. ms cunducl mum seem to suppurl P‘s mmpknnt aI>ouID1‘s mgh nandedness In Imposing «arms upon the uml awnars wna are at ms mercy. d The,‘ 1" Defendanl has lafled m mscnage hm bumen ol Qmgl 41 The burden rs on D! m Juswy ms remunaraubn I find man he has faned to do so The mun cannot sxmply accept D1's hare anegauons at face value. 42. The court or Appeal m Ong Kwong vew 5 Or: v ong Cmng cnee 5. Or: 5 other appeals [2018] 1 ms 2247 held that a hquldalofs remuneranan must be charanensed by (amass and reasonableness: ‘The Law on ma sees and srenaarus up be umrsua rn me nssussmervl ol reaauname rernuneranpn due to a lraurdalw [H75]Th¢ case nIPemmsharv NCK Sdn any V Mags Sakh San. End [2055] 1 ms 152‘ [2005] 7 ML] 359 5575 out mnwrehensrvely me »aw rn mlslrun ID raerran 2321310: '55 and Fun um» onnu Ruins rr sxarrnnrrs mler aha‘ me prrmpres in be appm wrran rlstenvvmmg me rernunerarrpn pnrauraarprs The Count: trvmlov to pmoeed on me basis Ina! reasaname mnunararron As to Do para oul Thi bunchmarlz In dttonmniny nr. qulnrum lo a pull! out is ‘I-Imus Ind remnaarenm, wnrsn are «my drsrmlmnary (um: A blind or unuusuronmg ammo rs no: ndvuceted [VD9]T7v: cum mnomded by slatmg Ina! r: renrarns wen for ma cowl ur any rnansnaaacraa on me onlrmum rmm ola:s~essw‘r\g rarrrernunerarron, albml on a nrne basrs a reausarrpn buss pr rrn an enoomgassmg basis wnare alt omre smd mlerla am cunxrdarn Nawever whatever we Disrs adomad u must be enareemvsru by mrnsss Ind reasunabrmu ' 43. Vn order in! D1 to sansvy the cam Iha\ he has arsenargeu ms burden of wool. mere must be adequate material betora lhe oourl up underlake an anmysis. \ insumcranuar n: In mere\y allege that ms remunera' n is law because he nas done we or that m mere general terms, or mat law because wt is less man 1% co the purchase price m am pLvLAsw5EEPDevzuszxFg “Nana sum nmhnrwm r. u... m vum r... nr1g\n|HIy mm: dnuumnl vn mum penar

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-22NCvC-272-07/2022

PLAINTIF SUPATRA TAVI A/P SUBRAMANIAM DEFENDAN CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES SDN BHD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN)PIHAK TERKILANDATO' SRI SHAMIR KUMAR NANDY

Withdrawal of suit - plaintiff withdraws action with no liberty to file afresh – plaintiff’s action struck out with no liberty to file afresh – defendant’s third party notice for indemnity – defendant’s indemnity claim is contingent upon event of defendant being held liable for the plaintiff’s claims – defendant’s withdrawal of third party notice – defendant’s third party notice struck out with no liberty to file afresh – limit of “no liberty to file afresh” – whether defendant has valid ground to object against “no liberty to file afresh”.

22/12/2023

YA Tuan Tee Geok Hock

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6ae85d67-c8b9-439a-b28e-545627983d64&Inline=true

22/12/2023 15:35:02 BA-22NCvC-272-07/2022 Kand. 75 S/N Z13oarnImkOyjlRWJ5g9ZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Z13oarnImkOyjlRWJ5g9ZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Z13oarnImkOyjlRWJ5g9ZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Z13oarnImkOyjlRWJ5g9ZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Z13oarnImkOyjlRWJ5g9ZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Z13oarnImkOyjlRWJ5g9ZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mx—22ncvc—272—n7/2022 Kand. 75 ‘me man coukr or NIALAVA In sum Auivi"m"” —5 35 “ m we sure or szumsox DARUI. EHSAN. MALAYSIA CIVIL sun NO: BA-ZZNCVC-272-07/M12 BETWEEN SUPATRA TAVI A/P SIJBRAMANIAM [IDENTITY cum NO. : sumo-1 u-1114) PLAINTIFF AND CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES snu. END. (IN LIQUIDATION) (couunmv NO.:7fl13BI-H) . DEFENDAN AND mmr SRI snmm KUNIAR mmuv (IDENTITY cmzu no e4u1n7-01.5419) .. mum: PARTY enouuns as JUDGMENT wamhaxaxan alas Pemhemanhan Tmdakan) Innouucfion and Blckgruund 1. On 12.7.2022‘ ma Pnaimm, m Iwarcauamw as me wife and nammee or rear hushend Darluk Aooareo a/V Avana‘ filed mas anion agalnsl me Deéendanl. a company m I>quIda|\on puuuanl Io Mndmg-up order 0! me com, «or specflm peflarmance of and ancfllary when in connecnon with a5a\e and Furdiass Agresmsm dated 24 2 zmn mm SPA‘) m rsspecl ofa pmpeny dascried as penmause mm at Parcel No. A-36-03. Na Unit 03‘ Tmgka| 35‘ Jams Penmuusa, Bsnaunan crest Resuaenoe. The cresualan Sultan Ismail, Kuala 1 5w z1:aoam\mxoynRwJ5§izA -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm Lumwr (“me said Properly; which was allegedly signed barwaen the neiendanl as me vendor and the Plalhm as purchaser nominated by Dalo‘ Apparau [see paragraph 5 is pilha Arrlarldad slalamern cf claim in Enclasure 31 It ms also aiisged py lha l>iairlliu lhal by a cream Mata dalad 25.2 znlu (‘ma cradit No(e'] issued by lha Defendant no the Plaihllu, lha lull purchase price icr lhe said Prdperly was continued |o have been paid [see Paraatuph 5 20 M the Amended smamam oi claim]. According lo the Pialnmly lhls paymenl pipumhasa prlbe rprlhe sale and pulchasaaflha said Properly was a mnlia paynlsnl zrrangemenl iprltia allagsd services rendered by nsluk Appaiaa to ma neiaridantarldlpr ralalud companies The Piailflilfs claims arid aliagaliuhs wera named by the Deieridanl [see Amended Slalemenl in salaries In Enclosure 9]. shdrlly paidra the nlirig pi ma original Defense (Enclpsura st, lha oaiahdahl issued a Third Party Notice an 19 3.2022 against Dam‘ sri shamir, the Third Pam’ [sea Enclosure 5) in lha uaceridanrs Slmemeril in Claim agairisl the thin: Pany ih Enclosure 60,012 naiairdanl plaadad praaali pi dultaa on lha pan dnhe Third Party in ralalipri to handiing diarid dealings mm the sald Frupeny and claimed (or lrldemriny against the Third Party In the folilywiflfl woms in paragraphs la and (7 lhaiapi. “16. In the cwvumsfances, in in. Iv-nl tn. piairmvrs cllim is auaw-d. tn. Tliln-I may Is uni. In ind-rrirwy the Dnhnlilnl /dr alt loss, darrraga, rhteraai, coal arid expenses which the Dalaridaril may incur pr sullsv arising rrprrr the Third 2 art ZiJo:vrilmkDY|\RWJ5fiilA ‘Nuns s.r.i In-vihnrwm be flied m mm ms nflnlruflly mi. dnunvinnl VI] nFil.ING WM! Parry‘: bleach oldultes and/av to defend the Plawm clavm hersm 17 wuznex-‘one, m. ommn: cllims ngninsl rm mm Pzny, In me evmt an norm:-m I: nu Ilnble to the Plaintiff: claim rm-In, cm following 17 1 Sum oIRM3,222,Eo0 an bemglhe vamu Mme Pmoeny M-ytedtn me 1! sm, 17 2 Sum nlRM1,4.9&2B5 27 mung (he LAD charmed by me Plsfntifllogelhel mm Interest , 17 3 Cosls oltne angina! action and thr'n1~pav(y pvocssdrng: an mu mdamnfly nasrs; and 17 A Such Izlher and further re//ifs omm nude on s Novomhcr 2:12: Tlna 9 Nmrember 2023 sesswon bsfbve «ms Cowl was man alarms paruas normed me Registrar man may wanled m wimaraw lhelr respeclive claims in me acncn and In me mum puny pmceedmg on 9 November 2023. me Hammrs munsal invannsd lms Calm mm as the mamnus key wlmsss Dztuk Auparao passed my reeenny and ms Ptaimm nas no mhsr supporting wnnm xo «saucy for lhe vlzinuvrs case, me Piainmf decuaea m wwhdmw my cwann and action. Vn response‘ me Demaanrs counsel had no ob;ez:Iinn (or me Halnlwfls withdrawal of her aclmn hm Dvassad far can: m achon m me nmounl o1RM2n,cm and z\sL7 fnrnu ubenyco me afresh Tm De¢endzm‘5 ummsex apphad |u wilhdriw Iha rnum Pany Notice. and askad |ha\ Ihave be no costs on me mum any proceeding The mm Pam/‘s counsal had no ubjeclion «a me wI|hdmwa\a1Ihe mm Pany 3 sw Z11o:m\mkDynRW.A5nfiZA -um smm ...m.mn be used m van; .. mmny mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! Appnl by Ihn Dcfnndnnl 9 10. Npnpa but asked for was at mm pany proceeding m me sum :1! RM5.0DD Allev neannp ma pumes‘ respacnya saunas! and mew oral anblicahons my withdrawal and (or oasis, W: Court on 9 November zuza made me fouowina mere (1; The Plammfs adnon agamsl me DefiendIn| u muck oul wun na many up ma afresh: (2) ma Flainm shall pay casts nl RM5,DDD xp ma Defendant, sumem to anooator. (3) The Delendam'sThlrd Pany Ncmcel: shuck amwulh no may to file afresh, and 14) The Defandanl shall pay costs at ammo up ma Thu-d Pany, suniecl m allccalor unnappy wi|h ma nanns allhe said Order dated 9 Nuvembet me, me Defendant has filed an appeal in ma caunpmppaan. From me cements or me Name ol Aweal, we awears mp: me Defendant is unhappy mm ‘Iva Imsny up We afresh” as a term of sinking out |he navandanrs Third Parry Nmioe oonssquenllal upon the Defendan|‘s wilm1rawa\ onm Third Party Notice Evllunion. lsilnmlnt Ind mnncaapn by this cam 11 As summansad In Paragraph 5 above, Ihs 5049 and enllre hams of me uecenaanrs Indemnlly claim against me nun: party nu ma «mm pany pmoeedmg ws connngenl upon ma Defendant bemg held name 4 am zuoavnwmxaynwwfinfizn ‘Nab! Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe up... w yaw ms nrW\ruU|:I mm: dun-mm wa muNG pm 12 13 14 In lha P\amM! m we Plainmrs acuon rm exnresuon ‘In ma mm the pmnums claim Is allawed" m pamgraph 15 am ma exnnzssion 'WHEREFORE, mu Dlfcndanl cl "ms ag ‘pm khn nmu Party, In the mm on omndam is man lllblo to ma pmnmrs claim nmrn. mo following" m ma opanmg sentence at paragraph 17 no me Defeudan|'s Statement ov cmn. agam51|h9 T ' Fatty make ms pmnn crv=1a\ cluar. As me PVAIHW has wnnauawn ma Plsmmlfs dalm and achon agam the Defendant with no libany tn file acmsn, me Ixxnlmuency or pre- oencmion wmch vannea ma Defendant‘: sols ham at indemnily dam in the mm party Dfooeadmg ::anno|D0ss1b|Y napnen In Mme. In ma pmrmsas, Ihem is no vahd mason lnrlha Defendant m have any Viburty to me afresh "ms Vndsmmty mam. against the rum party for any Iiabmy wn-on Ihe Ccufl holds egainsl me uevenaanc m resped mne P\A\n|M's am and mmun 015011133‘ w «na Dsfundanl has any cause 0! acnon av pefwwed cause o1 acuon agamsl ma mm Pany In rnspscl at any mafia! or cause wmcn Is ml part at me Plalnmfs dawn Vn «ne P\zurm!l's suI| herein or much \5 unrelated In me sen: Pmparw, such L7lhe( (2115315) :2! acllun win nul be barred nr alfeasd by me larm uf “nu liberty In me awash‘ In eonnscuon mm m slrikmg out ol mm mm: Puny Mme nerein Dated ems . 20" Daoamber 2u23 syn zuoavnwrnxaynwwfinizn -um Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm .. nnnmun mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm czwnr-ma nwx copy S\gnld TEE esox uocx w Iumlotouw JUDGE V, V... .. " ,.,, HIGH ovum or MALAYA AT sr-w-4 ALAM »g.c.m.fl,*§..,..~." mcvw» an To me parties‘ sohcnors. 1 For me pmmu Jzya Purusheluran 5. JJ Nam a/V RJ Nam Messrs JJ New 5 Raksn-Raksn Isnan Alam) 2 For (he Defendam cs Mona & Medha Orvg Ann Tmg Messrs Lee Hlshamuddm Allen & Gweamll 1KuaIa Lumpur) 3. For me Tmm Pany Avmder Smgh em an Ranm Singh Messrs Avwndav em Chambers (Kua|a Lumpur) sm z11u:vnImwynRwJ5nizA «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-82D-7-09/2019

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH EZFARUL MOHAMAD FARZIN BIN ROJIE

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Kesalahan memasukkan dadah ke dalam badan sendiri di bawah Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya - Pesalah penjawat awam - Perbezaan hasil ujian saringan awal dadah oleh pihak polis dan hasil ujian pengesahan dadah oleh saksi pakar - Kepincangan keterangan berkenaan perbezaan tulisan membangkitkan keraguan terhadap keterangan saksi - Keperluan memenuhi prasyarat 'arrested person' di bawah Seksyen 31A Akta Dadah Berbahaya melibatkan pesalah anggota polis- Kecacatan pada kertas pertuduhan sama ada terjumlah kepada kecacataan pertuduhan atau kesilapan perkeranian - Pembuktian kes di aras pirma facie di akhir kes pendakwaan - Perintah pelepasan dan pembebasan di akhir kes pendakwaan tanpa dipanggil membela diri

22/12/2023

Puan Sasha Diana bt Sabtu

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f758f288-57b1-4b89-bd48-1840d389aeea&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (1) SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR NO KES BA-82D-7-09/2019 PENDAKWA RAYA LWN EZFARUL MOHAMAD FARZIN BIN ROJIE ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN 22/12/2023 05:51:35 BA-82D-7-09/2019 Kand. 85 S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 RINGKASAN LATAR PENTAS KES [1] Rayuan ini berbangkit dari satu keputusan Mahkamah ini membuat perintah lepas dan bebas ke atas Orang Kena Tuduh di akhir kes pendakwaan. [2] Orang Kena Tuduh (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai OKT) telah dituduh di bawah Seksyen 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (ADB) bagi kesalahan memasukkan dadah ke dalam tubuh badan sendiri. OKT telah tidak mengaku salah. Pertuduhan yang dibicarakan ke atas OKT diperturunkan seperti berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 5/07/2019 jam lebih kurang 10.53 pagi di pejabat Bahagian Narkotik IPD Shah Alam dalam daerah Petaling di Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan didapati telah melibatkan diri kamu dengan memasukkan dadah berbahaya jenis ke dalam tubuh badan sendiri sepertimana ternyata di bawah Bahagian IV Jadual Pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 15(1) (a) ADB 1952 dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen yang sama.” Bagi pertuduhan ini, hukuman bagi kesalahan adalah dibawah seksyen 15(1)(a) ADB dan dibaca bersama seksyen 38B ADB. [3] Perbicaraan dijalankan dengan pendakwaan memanggil 5 orang saksi. Kronologi kejadian dalam kes ini menunjukkan OKT telah ditahan di pos pengawal oleh Bahagian Integriti dan Pematuhan Standard dan dibawa ke Bahagian Narkotik IPD Shah Alam untuk menjalani ujian saringan awal dadah. Hasil ujian mendapati sampel air kencing OKT positif dadah jenis amphetamine dan methamphetamine. Setelah membuat penilaian keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan di peringkat kes pendakwaan secara keseluruhan, Mahkmah ini mendapati pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap OKT dan OKT telah dilepaskan dan dibebaskan. [4] Pihak pendakwaan telah tidak berpuas hati terhadap keputusan Mahkamah dan seterusnya memfailkan rayuan ini. S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 ELEMEN KESALAHAN DAN ANALISIS KETERANGAN [5] Pertuduhan yang dihadapkan ke atas OKT di bawah Seksyen 15(1)(a) ADB menghendaki elemen-elemen berikut dipenuhi: (i) OKT telah memberikan dadah kepada dirinya sendiri dimana sampel air kencing milik OKT mengandungi dadah jenis methylenedioxy methamphetamine; (ii) jenis dadah tersebut adalah dadah yang tersenarai di bawah ADB; dan (iii) pemakaian anggapan statutori di bawah Seksyen 37(k) ADB bahawa OKT sendiri telah memberikan dadah kepada dirinya. [6] Bagi membuktikan intipati pertuduhan, pendakwaan memanggil 5 orang saksi untuk memberi keterangan; (i) SP1: jurugambar, pegawai pemungut sampel air kencing, penghantar sampel dan mengambil sampel dan laporan ujian air kencing (ii) SP2: pengadu dan pegawai yang menjalankan ujian saringan awal air kencing (iii) SP3: Ketua Bahagian Integriti dan Pematuhan Standard PDRM (iv) SP4: pegawai sains kimia hayat (v) SP5: pegawai penyiasat [7] SP1 merupakan jurufoto yang merakamkan gambar bagi kes ini dan juga berperanan sebagai pegawai pemungut sampel air kencing. Pada 5.7.2019 jam lebih kurang 8.40 pagi, SP1 telah membawa OKT untuk memberi sampel air kencing di tandas Bahagian Siasatan Narkotik Daerah, IPD Shah Alam setelah diarahkan oleh SP2. SP1 telah mengiringi OKt untuk tujuan pengambilan sampel air kencing. Selepas OKT memberi sampel air kencing di tandas, OKT dibawa balik ke pejabat narkotik dan sampel air kencing diuji menggunakan 6 jenis test strip oleh SP2. SP1 memaklumkan mahkamah 2 test strip yang diuji memberi hasil positif iaitu peket kuning dan biru. SP1 juga memberitahu Mahkamah bahawa dia telah diarahkan oleh SP5 untuk merakamkan gambar barang kes, gambar tandas tempat sampel air kencing diambil, dan meja tempat ujian saringan dijalankan. Gambar barang kes dikenalpasti sama dengan barang kes dalam kes ini. S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Selain itu, SP1 juga berperanan menghantar barang kes iaitu 1 botol sampel air kencing beserta borang permintaan ujian air kencing ke Jabatan Patologi Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Botol dalam keadaan baik dan berseal. SP5 iaitu pegawai penyiasat kes kemudiannya telah mengarahkan SP1 untuk mengambil laporan ujian air kencing dan barang kes semula dari Jabatan Patologi Hospital Kuala Lumpur setelah analisa selesai. SP1 mengesahkan bahawa barang kes botol air kencing berada dalam keadaan baik semasa dihantar ke Jabatan Patologi dan berseal dengan baik semasa diambil semula dari Jabatan Patologi Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Semasa soal balas, SP1 mengesahkan bahawa semua dokumentasi yang terlibat iaitu label pada botol sampel air kencing (P9), borang senarai geledah (P21) dan borang serah terima barang kes (P20) telah diisi oleh SP2. SP1 telah memberi contoh tulisannya yang ditanda sebagai D19 untuk dibandingkan oleh mahkamah. Penelitian mahkamah adalah contoh tulisan SP1 mempunyai persamaan dengan lenggok dan gaya tulisan pada label di P9, P20 dan P21. [8] SP2 merupakan Ketua Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik Daerah Shah Alam dan juga merupakan pegawai yang membuat ujian saringan awal air kencing terhadap sampel air kencing OKT. Pada 5.7.2019 jam lebih kurang 8.40 pagi, SP2 telah menerima 1 lelaki melayu (dicamkan sebagai OKT) yang dibawa oleh Ketua Bahagian Integriti dan Pematuhan Standard iaitu SP3 untuk dibuat ujian saringan awal polis. SP2 telah memberi arahan kepada SP1 untuk mengiringi OKT ke tandas untuk tujuan pengambilan sampel air kecing. OKT telah diberi peluang untuk memilih botol sampel dan botol sampel dipegang sendiri oleh OKT sepanjang proses pengambilan sampel air kencing sehingga ia diserahkan kepada SP2 untuk ujian saringan awal. SP2 telah menjalankan ujian saringan awal air kencing ke atas sampel air kencing OKT menggunakan 6 test strip dan hasil ujian mendapati air kencing OKT positif mengandungi dadah jenis amphetamine dan methamphetamine. SP2 mengesahkan selepas hasil ujian saringan awal air kencing tersebut didapati positif, OKT telah ditangkap dan laporan tangkapan dibuat oleh SP2 (ekshibit P22). SP2 memberitahu mahkamah bahawa dia telah mengisi borang senarai geledah (P21), borang serah terima barang kes (P20) dan label pada botol sampel air kencing (P9). Semasa soal balas, SP2 telah memberi contoh tulisannya (ditandakan sebagai ekshibit D23) untuk S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 mahkamah membuat perbandingan dengan tulisan pada P9, P20 dan P21. Penelitian mahkamah adalah contoh tulisan SP2 secara mata kasar menunjukkan perbezaan lenggok dan gaya tulisan pada label di P9, P20 dan P21. SP2 menerangkan lenggok tulisannya tidak sama kerana “tulisan saya memang tidak konsisten kerana saya akan ikut sedap saya”. SP2 mengesahkan meskipun tidak sama namun itu adalah tulisan beliau. [9] SP3 merupakan Ketua Bahagian Integriti dan Pematuhan Standard telah memberi keterangan secara lisan dan melalui penyata saksi (P24) bahawa pada 5.7.2019 jam lebih kurang 8.15 pagi, semasa dia bersama beberapa pegawai lain menjalankan pemeriksaan pematuhan integriti di pos pengawal IPD Shah Alam, OKT telah melalui pos pengawal tersebut menaiki motorsikal di mana ASP Zaiful telah menahan OKT. Pemeriksaan mendapati OKT gagal mengemukakan lesen dan cukai jalan yang sah serta membawa bersamanya senjata api kerana baru tamat bertugas. OKT kemudiannya diarahkan untuk memulangkan senjata api dan dikelaurkan saman trafik ke atasnya. Oleh kerana tingkahlaku OKT didapati mencurigakan, SP3 telah mengarah Kopl Rohafizan untuk membawa OKT ke Bahagian Narkotik menjalani ujian saringan air kencing bagi tujuan melaksanakan e-SKDD (Elektronik Skim Kawalan Disiplin dan Dadah). Jam lebih kurang 8.40 pagi, SP3 telah menunggu kehadiran Kopl Rohafizan bersama OKT dan menyerahkan OKT kepada SP2 untuk tujuan ujian saringan wal air kencing. SP3 telah menyaksikan OKT memilih botol, diiring untuk memberi sampel air kencing di tandas, kembali dengan sampel air kencing di dalam botol, dan melihat SP2 membuat ujian saringan awal dengan mencelup test strip ke dalam botol sampel yang diberi OKT. SP2 memaklumkan kepada SP3 bahawa hasil ujian saringan awal ke atas air kencing OKT didapati positif dadah jenis amphetamine dan methamphetamine. Semasa disoal balas, SP3 mengesahkan bahawa semasa OKT dibawa ke Bahagian Narkotik diambil sampel air kenicng dan menjalani ujian saringan awal air kencing, OKT belum ditangkap. [10] SP4 adalah pegawai sains kimia hayat (ahli patologi) Jabatan Patologi Hospital Kuala Lumpur yang menjalankan ujian pengesanan dadah dalam air kencing OKT. SP3 telah memberi keterangan melalui penyata saksi (P26) dan keterangan lisan di Mahkamah. SP4 menyatakan bahawa beliau telah menerima satu botol sampel air kencing OKT dalam keadaan sempurna dan berseal dari SP1 yang mengandungi S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 isipadu yang mencukupi untuk dianalisa. Hasil ujian saringan menggunakan kaedah immunoassay menunjukkan sampel air kencing OKT adalah positif bagi dadah kumpulan Amphetamine Type Stimulant (ATS) dan ujian pengesahan yang dijalankan menggunakan kaedah Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry mengesahkan air kencing OKT positif bagi dadah jenis 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. SP4 menerangkan bahawa ATS adalah “common name” bagi dadah amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA dan MDA. SP4 telah menyediakan laporan ujian pengesanan dadah (P16) yang mengesahkan sampel air kencing OKT; (i) tidak mengandungi amphetamine, (ii) tidak mengandungi methamphetamine, (iii) tidak mengandungi methylenedioxy-amphetamine (MDA), dan (iv) ada mengandungi 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). [11] Saksi akhir pendakwaan adalah SP5 yang berperanan sebagai pegawai penyiasat memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa pada 5.7.2019 jam lebih kurang 840 pagi, SP3 telah membawa 1 anggota lelaki yang bertugas di Lokap Berpusat Shah Alam (dicamkan sebagai OKT) untuk menjalani ujian saringan awal air kencing. Hasil ujian saringan awal dapati sampel air kencing OKT positif amphetamine dan methamphetamine. SP5 telah mengarahkan SP1 untuk mengambil gambar barang kes, meja tempat ujian saringan dibuat, test strip positif serta tandas tempat sampel air kencing diambil dan kemudian mengarahkan SP1 menghantar botol sampel mengandungi air kencing OKT ke Jabatan Patologi Hospital Kuala Lumpur. SP5 selanjutnya mengarahkan SP1 mengambil semula botol sampel air kencing OKT beserta laporan makmal ujian pengesahan dadah setelah selesai analisan oleh SP4. SP5 mengesahkan menerima laporan analisan yang disediakan oleh SP4 beserta botol sampel air kencing yang disahkan mengandungi dadah jenis 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine. Keterangan Sp5 ini direkodkan secara lisan dan melalui penyata saksi (ekshibit P27). Semasa disoal balas, SP5 mengesahkan bahawa jenis dadah dalam pertuduhan, hasil ujian saringan awal air kencing oleh SP2 dan hasil analisa oleh SP4 menunjukkan dadah yang berbeza. SP5 menerangkan bahawa jenis pengesahan kandungan air kencing hanya boleh disahkan oleh analisa makmal sepertimana keterangan dan laporan SP4 dalam kes ini. [12] Berdasarkan kronologi keterangan di atas, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan menunjukkan bahawa OKT telah ditahan pada S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 5.7.2019 dan dibawa ke Bahagian Narkotik IPD Shah Alam oleh Ketua Bahagian Integriti dan Pematuhan Standard untuk ujian saringan awal air kencing. Sampel air kencing OKT diberi oleh OKT sendiri di dalam botol yang dipilih oleh OKT. Hasil ujian saringan menunjukkan keputusan postitif dadah amphetamine dan methamphetamine. Botol ini telah diseal, dilabel, dalam keadaan baik dan dihantar ke Jabatan Patologi untuk dianalisa. Hasil analisa mendapati sampel air kencing OKT positif dadah jenis 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine iaitu sejenis dadah yang dijadualkan di bawah Bahagian III Jadual Pertama ADB. Pertuduhan selanjutnya dibuat terhadap OKT bagi kesalahan memasukkan dadah berbahaya jenis methylenedioxy methamphetamine ke dalam tubuh badan sendiri. Barang kes disimpan dengan selamat dan dihantar serah ke Jabatan Patologi untuk ujian dalam keadaan baik dan diterima semula oleh pegawai penyiasat dalam keadaan baik. Walau bagaimanapun, keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan ini telah membangkitkan beberapa isu fatal yang telah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. ISU-ISU BERBANGKIT [13] Perbezaan hasil ujian saringan awal dan hasil analisa makmal ke atas sampel air kencing OKT Ujian saringan awal air kencing OKT memberikan hasil positif dadah amphetamine dan methamphetamine. Hasil ujian makmal oleh SP4 mengesahkan air kencing OKT mengandungi dadah jenis 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine dan tidak mengandungi dadah jenis amphetamine dan methamphetamine. Mahkamah ini mengambil pertimbangan keterangan SP4 yang menyatakan dadah kategori ATS merangkumi dadah antaranya amphetamine, methamphetamine dan 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine. Mahkamah ini juga akur bahawa ujian di kedua- dua peringkat ini adalah ujian yang berbeza di mana ujian saringan awal dibuat untuk menentukan sama ada terdapat unsur kesalahan penyalahgunaan dadah menggunakan kaedah ringkas (test strip) pengesanan kehadiran dadah dalam sampel air kecing dan kemudian ujian pengesahan dadah di makmal yang menggunakan kaedah analisa yang mematuhi piawaian untuk mengesahkan kehadiran dadah dan jenis dadah dalam sampel air kencing. Meskipun begitu, tiada sebarang keterangan S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 yang jelas oleh mana-mana saksi pendakwaan terutama saksi pakar (SP4) mengapa atau bagaimana hasil kedua-dua ujian ini berbeza terutamanya amphetamine dan methamphetamine yang tidak dikesan semasa ujian pengesahan makmal ini berbanding hasil ujian saringan awal. Keterangan yang dikemukakan melalui SP4 tidak berjaya menjelaskan dan melunaskan beban pembuktian bahawa sememangnya sampel air kencing OKT yang sama yang pada awalnya dikesan mengandungi dadah amphetamine dan methamphetamine telah tidak lagi mengandungi dadah tersebut semasa ujian pengesahan sebaliknya mengandungi dadah jenis lain. Mahkamah tidak boleh membuat anggapan dengan sendirinya bahawa ia merupakan dadah kategori sama jenis ATS dan perbezaan dadah dari kedua-dua ujian ini boleh diterima secara terus berdasarkan anggapan ini. Penjelasan sedemikian perlulah diberikan sendiri oleh saksi pakar SP4. Dalam ketiadaan keterangan sedemikian, perbezaan hasil ujian di kedua-dua peringkat ini telah menimbulkan keraguan kepada kes pendakwaan. [14] Tiada tangkapan sebelum proses sampel air kencing diambil dan ujian saringan awal dijalankan Sampel air kencing diambil dan ujian saringan dijalankan sebelum OKT ditangkap. Isu ini telah dibangkitkan oleh peguam di peringkat kes pendakwaan semasa soal balas saksi. Melalui keterangan SP2 dan SP3, aliran keterangan menunjukkan bahawa OKT telah dibawa oleh Bahagian Integriti ke Bahagian Narkotik untuk menjalani ujian saringan awal air kencing secara rawak. Setelah sampel air kencing OKT disahkan positif mengandungi dadah, SP2 mengesahkan telah membuat tangkapan ke atas OKT. SP3 juga mengesahkan bahawa tiada tangkapan dibuat sebelum hasil ujian saringan awal didapati positif dadah. Bagi memenuhi keperluan di bawah Seksyen 31A ADB, tangkapan ke atas OKT hendaklah dibuat sebelum ujian saringan awal dijalankan ke atas OKT kerana peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 31A ini menghendaki “arrested person” untuk diperiksa atau memberi sampel air kencing. Berdasarkan keterangan melalui saksi, SP2 dan SP3 mengesahkan OKT hanya ditangkap setelah sampel air kencing diberi dan ujian saringan awal dibuat. Dalam ketiadaan actual arrest sebelum sampel air kencing diambil, mahkamah boleh melihat keterangan saksi-saksi sama ada keadaan semasa S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 kejadian menunjukkan OKT telah di sekat kebebasannya dan terjumlah kepada constructive arrest. Merujuk kepada kes PP lwn Mohd Safwan Ismail [2017] 7 CLJ, constructive arrest juga diterima sebagai satu bentuk tangkapan. Namun, dalam kes ini, keterangan saksi-saksi serta laporan tangkapan yang ditandakan ekshibit P22 dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa OKT sememangnya ditangkap setelah semua proses ujian saringan awal selesai dan hasil ujian saringan awal positif dadah. Dalam keadaan keterangan yang jelas ini, Mahkamah ini tidak boleh construe keadaan OKT semasa keseluruhan proses tersebut sebagai terjumlah kepada satu constructive arrest. Oleh kerana keterangan menunjukkan tiada tangkapan berlaku sebelum sampel diberi dan ujian saringan awal dibuat, kehendak utama dibawah Seksyen 31A ADB iaitu being an arrested person telah gagal dipenuhi. [15] Kepincangan berkenaan tulisan pada label di P9, P20 dan P21 Semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh peguam, SP1 dan SP2 telah diminta untuk menulis nama OKT dan no kad pengenalan agar boleh dijadikan contoh perbandingan tulisan pada label di P9, dokumen P20 dan P21. Pengamatan mahkamah ke atas contoh tulisan SP1 (D19) dan SP2 (D23) yang menunjukkan perbezaan tulisan apabila dibandingkan dengan tulisan pada borang- borang telah menimbulkan tanda tanya sama ada benar borang-borang tersebut diisi oleh SP1 kerana menunjukkan tulisan yang lebih mirip atau borang-borang tersebut sememangnya diisi oleh SP2 sepertimana keterangan lisan saksi-saksi ini. Perkara ini telah menimbulkan keraguan kepada mahkamah sama ada saksi-saksi ini sebenarnya bercakap benar di mahkamah atau memberi keterangan yang tidak truthful sepenuhnya sehingga menjejaskan kredibiliti masing-masing semasa memberi keterangan dan hanya memberi keterangan untuk memastikan versi kedua- dua saksi adalah selari meskipun D19 dan D23 menimbulkan tanda tanya. Perkara ini turut menimbulkan keraguan sama ada keterangan saksi-saksi yang menyatakan hanya OKT dan SP2 sahaja yang mempunyai akes kepada botol sampel air kencing OKT semasa ujian saringan awal dibuat benar atau tidak. Meskipun SP2 memberi penjelasan bahawa tulisannya berbeza dengan tulisan pada label di P9, borang P20 dan borang P21 kerana tulisan beliau memang tidak konsisten, ia tidak berjaya menerangkan bagaimana tulisan pada label P9, P20 dan P21 mirip tulisan SP1. S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Perbezaan jenis dadah melalui hasil ujian saringan awal dan hasil analisa makmal yang gagal diterangkan dengan jelas kepada mahkamah turut menyumbang kepada keraguan mengenai truthfulness keterangan saksi-saksi ini berkait akses dan rantaian keterangan botol sampel air kencing OKT. Mahkamah ini tidak menolak keterangan kedua-dua saksi ini namun kredibiliti dan truthfulness keterangan saksi SP1 dan SP2 ini tercabar atas asas percanggahan keterangan ini. [16] Kecacatan dalam kertas pertuduhan Pembacaan ke atas pertuduhan menunjukkan kesalahan OKT adalah menyalahgunakan dadah methylenedioxy methamphetamine. Di akhir kes pendakwaan, pihak pendakwaan memohon untuk membuat pindaan dari jenis dadah methylenedioxy methamphetamine kepada 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) selaras dengan Laporan Ujian Pengesanan Dadah Berbahaya (ekshibit P16). Peguam membantah pindaan di akhir kes pendakwaan ini atas asas ia memprejudiskan OKT kerana pembelaan yang dikemukakan telah disusun selari dengan dokumen-dokumen dan keterangan sedia ada. Selanjutnya, pertuduhan dalam kes ini turut merujuk kepada Bahagian IV Jadual Pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya. Semakan ke atas Bahagian IV Jadual Pertama ADB menyenaraikan senarai jenis atau bahan dadah yang dilarang di bawah ADB. Jenis dadah yang dipertuduhkan dalam kes ini iaitu 3,4 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) disenaraikan dalam Bahagian III Jadual Pertama ADB. Namun rujukan kepada Jadual Pertama ini juga adalah tidak relevan kerana bacaan ke atas ADB menunjukkan perkara yang lebih relevan untuk dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan adalah Bahagian IV ADB yang memperuntukkan mengenai kawalan ke atas dadah yang tersenarai di Bahagian III sehingga Bahagian V Jadual Pertama ADB. Selain itu, peguam turut membangkitkan berkenaan perbezaan masa pada pertuduhan berbanding keterangan oleh saksi-saksi. Pertuduhan menyatakan kesalahan telah dilakukan pada jam 10.53 pagi namun keterangan saksi-saksi menyatakan bahawa kejadian berlaku lebih kurang jam 8.40 pagi. Bagi perbezaan masa ini, pihak pendakwaan tidak memohon untuk sebarang pindaan dibuat. S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Meskipun terdapat sama ada kecacatan atau kesilapan perkeranian dalam kertas pertuduhan, Mahkamah ini mendapati tiada keperluan untuk memutuskan berkenaan sebarang pindaan ke atas kertas pertuduhan ini mengambilkira dapatan mahkamah bahawa tiada kes prima facie yang berjaya dibuktikan. Namun, sepertimana prinsip undang-undang matan, kecacatan dalam kertas pertuduhan yang diperincikan di atas telah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. [17] Isu-isu lain yang dibangkitkan pihak-pihak sepertimana hujahan bertulis dan lisan telah diberi pertimbangan dan diputuskan namun tidak dibincangkan lanjut di sini kerana tidak memberi kesan kepada beban pembuktian kes prima facie. BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN [18] Seksyen 173(f)(i) dan Seskyen 180 KTJ menggariskan mengenai beban pembuktian di akhir kes pendakwaan di mana mahkamah hendaklah memutuskan sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes di aras prima facie terhadap tertuduh. Kehendak undang-undang ini telah diterjemah di dalam kes-kes yang telah diputuskan terdahulu oleh mahkamah atasan yang telah menjadi asas panduan kepada beban pembuktian ini. Memetik prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes Balachandran vs PP [2005] 2 MLJ 301, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa beban pembuktian di akhir kes pendawkaan menghendaki mahkamah untuk membuat penilaian seperti berikut: “A prima facie case is therefore one that is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer. This in turn means that the evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal. The phrase ' prima facie case' is defined in similar terms in Mozley and Whiteley's Law Dictionary 11 th Ed as: A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for hisopponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, andcan be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side. S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Selanjutnya, kes Balachandran memutuskan bahawa The result is that the force of the evidence adduced must be such that, if unrebutted, it is sufficient toinduce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence soprobable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts exist or did happen. On theother hand if a prima facie case has not been made out it means that there is no material evidence whichcan be believed in the sense as described earlier. 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 theevidence adduced so as to determine whether the elements of the offence have been established.” [19] Mahkamah ini mengambil bimbingan dari otoriti-otoriti dan prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes-kes tersohor yang telah diputuskan berkenaan dengannya dalam penilaian pembuktian kes di aras prima facie. ALASAN KEPUTUSAN [20] Prinsip matan bagi beban pembuktian di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah di aras prima facie. Seksyen 180(2) KTJ memperuntukkan bahawa bilamana mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes di aras prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan, mahkamah hendaklah merekodkan perintah pelepasan dan pembebasan terhadap OKT. [21] Mahkamah ini telah menilai keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan secara keseluruhan sepertimana yang diperincikan di bawah perkara Elemen Kesalahan dan Analisis Keterangan. Secara ringkas, analisis keterangan oleh mahkamah ini menunjukkan bahawa OKT telah dibawa untuk ujian saringan awal air kencing dan memberi hasil positif dadah tanpa berlaku tangkapan sebelum proses ini bermula. Sampel air kencing OKT ini telah melalui ujian pengesahan makmal dan hasil ujian positif dadah 3,4-Methylebedioxymethamphetamine. Namun hasil positif dadah ini tidak sama dengan dadah ujian saringan awal serta berbeza dengan dadah dalam kertas pertuduhan selain mengambil kira perbezaan masa dan rujukan peruntukan yang kurang tepat di bawah ADB iaitu Jadual Pertama Bahagian IV Akta Dadah S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Berbahaya dalam kertas pertuduhan. Ketiadaan tangkapan sebelum proses ujian saringan awal bermula menyebabkan keperluan mandatori sebagai ‘arrested person’ di bawah Seksyen 31A ADB gagal dipenuhi. Perbezaan hasil kedua-dua ujian dadah ke atas sampel air kencing OKT yang tidak diterangkan dengan jelas menimbulkan tanda tanya kepada mahkamah dan kepincangan keterangan mengenai perbezaan tulisan membangkitkan keraguan terhadap keterangan saksi pendakwaan mengenai truthfulnes keterangan itu serta akses dan rantaian keterangan botol sampel air kencing. Isu-isu ini yang telah dibincangkan dengan terperinci di sini membawa mahkamah ini kepada dapatan baahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan elemen-elemen kesalahan sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam kertas pertuduhan, sepertimana yang diperturunkan di awal alasan penghakiman ini. [22] Atas asas kegagalan membuktikan elemen-elemen kesalahan dan setelah membuat penelitian dan penilaian penuh ke atas keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan secara keseluruhan, mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan intipati pertuduhan sepenuhnya ke atas OKT dan dengan itu, gagal membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap OKT. Oleh yang demikian, OKT diperintahkan untuk dilepaskan dan dibebaskan di akhir kes pendakwaan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. [23] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah membuat keputusan ini. Bertarikh 21 Disember 2023 Disediakan oleh, S/N iPJY97FXiUu9SBhA04mu6g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-25-36-05/2021

PEMOHON SAKTHI DEVI A/P MUNIANDY @ SEGARAN RESPONDEN 1. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN PELAJARAN 3. ) KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

an application for judicial review in accordance with Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 - The applicants, (collectively “the applicants”) filed this application to challenge the decision made by the first respondent, the Education Service Disciplinary Appeal Board on 24 August 2020. The decision in question pertained to the dismissal of the applicants appeal regarding disciplinary actions taken against them by the Education Service Disciplinary Board for the Support Group (No. 1) (“LTPPKS1”) - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993

22/12/2023

YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2d4ee85f-9c11-476e-aa10-d50119ba6d0f&Inline=true

1 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-35-05/2021 Dalam Perkara Kebenaran untuk Memfailkan Prosiding Semakan Kehakiman Di Bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah 3 dan Kaedah 3(7) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 serta bidang kuasa Mahkamah sedia ada untuk membenarkan permohonan untuk lanjutan masa; Dan Dalam Perkara Keputusan oleh Responden Pertama bertarikh 24.08.2020 yang menolak rayuan terhadap keputusan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Kumpulan Sokongan (No.1) bertarikh 25.3.2019; Dan Dalam Perkara Perenggan 1 kepada Jadual Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964; Dan Dalam Perkara Bab VIII Bahagian 2 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950; Dan Dalam Perkara Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 dan Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan 1994. 22/12/2023 13:32:09 BA-25-36-05/2021 Kand. 59 S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 ANTARA SAKTHI DEVI A/P MUNIANDY @ SEGARAN (No. K/P: 810407-14-5952) …PEMOHON DAN 1. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN PENDIDIKAN 2. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA 3. KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN Didengar Bersama DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-36-05/2021 Dalam Perkara Kebenaran untuk Memfailkan Prosiding Semakan Kehakiman Di Bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah 3 dan Kaedah 3(7) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 serta bidang kuasa Mahkamah sedia ada untuk membenarkan permohonan untuk lanjutan masa. Dan Dalam Perkara Keputusan oleh Responden Pertama bertarikh 24.08.2020 yang menolak rayuan terhadap keputusan Lembaga S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Kumpulan Sokongan (No.1) bertarikh 25.3.2019 Dan Dalam Perkara Perenggan 1 kepada Jadual Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 Dan Dalam Perkara Bab VIII Bahagian 2 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 Dan Dalam Perkara Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 dan Peraturan-Peraturan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan 1994 ANTARA LETCHUMY A/P SUBRAMANIAM (No. K/P: 791103-10-5950) …PEMOHON DAN 1. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN PENDIDIKAN 2. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA 3. KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an application for judicial review in accordance with Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). The applicants, Sakthi Devi A/P Muniandy (“Sakthi”) and Letchumy A/P Subramaniam (“Letchumy”) (collectively “the applicants”) filed this application to challenge the decision made by the first respondent, the Education Service Disciplinary Appeal Board on 24 August 2020. The decision in question pertained to the dismissal of the applicants appeal regarding disciplinary actions taken against them by the Education Service Disciplinary Board for the Support Group (No. 1) (“LTPPKS1”). [2] LTPPKS1 is not named as one of the respondents in the present suit before this court. The decision which the applicants seek this court to quash is an order of the Appeal Board under the Ministry of Education affirming the decision of LTPPKS1 to dismiss the applicants from services. [3] The disciplinary action against Sakthi and Letchumy were conducted separately by the LTPPKS1. Both Sakthi and Letchumy respectively received a letter dated 29 December 2017 entitled “Disciplinary Action with the purpose of Dismissal or Reduction in Rank” (“the LTPPKS1 Letters”). At that material time, Sakthi and Letchumy are both teachers working in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Rambai (“SJKT Ladang Sungai Rambai”). S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 [4] Due to the similarity in the factual matrix surrounding the disciplinary proceedings before LTPPKS1 and subsequently the first respondent, the applicants have in their respective Affidavit in Support averred that the application for judicial review by both the applicants can be heard together. The respondents have acknowledged the same. These two applications were heard together before this court. Reliefs Sought [5] Briefly, the applicants sought the following reliefs in this application for judicial review: (i) an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first respondent in rejecting the appeal against the LTPPKS1 decision; (ii) an order that the LTPPKS1 decision be quashed; (iii) that the applicants be reinstated as second respondent and third respondent’s employee as teacher and be placed in a school located in Kuala Selangor; (iv) that all salaries and allowances which were suspended by the respondents ever since they were suspended and throughout the proceedings of this application for judicial review be taxed by the court and paid to the applicants jointly and/or severally; (v) damages suffered by the applicants to be paid by the respondents jointly and/or severally; S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 (vi) all instruction and order arisen and necessary; and (vii) interests and costs. Factual Background [6] The applicants averred that the cause of all events that happened is the teachers’ complaint against the then headmistress of SJKT Ladang Sungai Rambai, Mehar Banu Binti Pakeer Mohammad (“the SJKTLSR Headmistress”) which ultimately led to the issuance of the Sakthi Transfer Order and the Letchumy Transfer Order. The applicants were serving as Pegawai Perkhidmatan Pendidikan at Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (SJK) (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Rambai (“SJKTLSR”), Selangor then transferred to SJK (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Tinggi, Kuala Selangor, Selangor. [7] The applicants’ Affidavit in Support contained averments in relation to how they suffered oppression by the collective conspiracy between the SJKTLSR Headmistress and the officers of the Kuala Selangor District Education Office. [8] Due to the applicants’ failure to report to their new school, disciplinary action has been taken against them. The applicants’ appeal against their respective Transfer Order receive no response except their appeal against the Kuala Selangor District Education Office which the outcome thereof was not in their favour. The applicants did not receive any reply on their complaints against the SJKTLSR Headmistress too. The applicants were eventually dismissed pursuant to the decision of the first respondent. S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 The Charges [9] The charges framed against both the applicants were identical and could be succinctly reproduced as follows: (i) in relation to the First Charge (“First Charge”), the applicants, during their service in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Rambai, Kuala Selangor, Selangor have, without the approval of the Head of Department, exited the vicinity of the school and went to the Bestari Jaya Police Station and therafter to the Selangor Education Department during teaching hours on 1 March 2017, 9.20 a.m. The applicants were reported to have failed to return to the school for the rest of the day and have never recorded the applicants’ return hour. Such act of the applicants shall be deemed to have breached the code of conduct under General Order 5 Chapter G, rule 5 vis-à-vis compliance with working hours and the applicants were being charged for being irresponsible and insubordination under Regulations 4(2)(g) and 4(2)(i), Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 (“1993 Regulations”); (ii) in relation to the Second Charge (“Second Charge”), the charges framed against the applicants respectively are as followed:- (1) as against Sakthi, that she being on duty in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Tinggi, Kuala Selangor, Kuala Selangor, Selangor had been found to have failed to attend duty without leave or without first S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 having obtained the approval of the Head of Department or without any valid reason during a period from 2 May 2017 until 30 June 2017 and therefore disciplinary action could be initiated against Sakthi under Reg. 24 of the 1993 Regulations and be taken as in breach of the code of conduct under Regulation 4(2)(g) of the 1993 Regulations; (2) as against Letchumy, that she being on duty in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Selangor River, Bukit Rotan, Selangor had been found to have failed to attend duty without first having obtained the approval of the Head of Department or without any valid reason during a period from 2 May 2017 until 24 July 2017 and therefore disciplinary action could be initiated against Letchumy under Regulation 24 of the 1993 Regulations and be taken as in breach of the code of conduct under Reg. 4(2)(g) of the 1993 Regulations. (iii) in relation to the Third Charge (“Third Charge”), the charges framed against the applicants are as follows respectively: (1) as against Sakthi, the she being on duty in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Sungai Tinggi, Kuala Selangor, Kuala Selangor, Selangor had been found to have committed insubordination by failing to report on 2 May 2017 following the Transfer Order issued by the Kuala Selangor District Education Office dated 27 April S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 2017 (“the Sakthi Transfer Order”) and such conduct can be taken to mean that Sakthi had breached the code of conduct under Regulation 4(2)(i) of the 1993 Regulations; (2) as against Letchumy, that she being on duty in Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Tamil) Ladang Selangor River, Bukit Rotan, Selangor had been found to have committed insubordination by failing to report on 2 May 2017 following the Transfer Order issued by the Kuala Selangor District Education Office dated 27 April 2017 (“the Letchumy Transfer Order”) and such conduct can be taken to mean that Letchumy had breached the code of conduct under Regulation 4(2)(i) of the 1993 Regulations. [10] Vide two separate letters both dated 25 March 2019, LTPPKS1 have through the Secretary General of third respondent conveyed to each of the applicants the decision of LTPPKS1, and the punishments meted out against the applicants are same, as follows: (i) in relation to the First Charge, the applicants were given a warning pursuant to Regulation 38(a) of the 1993 Regulations; (ii) in relation to the Second Charge, the applicants were dismissed effective from 19 March 2019 pursuant to Regulation 38(g) of the 1993 Regulations and during the period which the applicants were absent from duty, the rights S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 to emolument were forfeited pursuant to Regulation 38(c) of the 1993 Regulations; (iii) with respect to the Third Charge, the applicants were dismissed effective from 19 March 2019 pursuant to Regulation 38(g) of the 1993 Regulations. (collectively as “LTPPKS1 Decision”) [11] The applicants were given the opportunity to appeal to first respondent within fourteen (14) days from the date the applicants received the LTPPKS1 Decision provided the appeal is made through the applicants’ respective Head of Department and, the appeal letter prepared by the applicants are to be addressed to the Chairman of first respondent, through the Headmaster of the schools which the details thereof have been stated in the LTPPKS1 Decision. The applicants submitted the appeal letter. [12] On 24 August 2020, the first respondent had through the Deputy Chairman of the second respondent, the Education Service Commission rejected the appeal of the applicants and affirmed the LTPPKS1 Decision (“the first respondent Decision”). Both the applicants acknowledged being communicated with the first respondent Decision. Aggrieved by the first respondent Decision, both the applicants filed their respective application for judicial review before this court. S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 The Grounds for The Judicial Review Application [13] The applicant’s grounds for this judicial review succinctly are as follows: (i) the first respondent’s Decision is defective, irregular and bias; (ii) the first respondent’s Decision in rejecting the applicants’ appeal against the LTPPKS1 decision is unlawful due to irregularity in procedure and substance, and biasness; (iii) the applicants were not treated equally with other officers which are involved in the same misconduct; (iv) the second respondent and third respondent have breached their fiduciary duty toward the applicants and not replying to the letters of the applicants; and (v) the first respondent’s Decision is a consequence of conspiracy between the officers of the second respondent and third respondent. Law relating to Judicial Review [14] Before this court proceeds to consider this application, it would be prudent to consider the legal principles relating to an application for judicial review. Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides for the procedures for an application for judicial review. [15] The principles surrounding the application for judicial review are trite. The court hearing an application for judicial review are allowed S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 to scrutinize not only the decision making process but also for substance, as to whether they are tainted by illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety and also proportionality [refer the Federal Court case of R Rama Chandra v. Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 147]. [16] Notwithstanding the foregoing approach, it has also been decided by the Federal Court case of Ranjut Kaur S Gopal Singh v Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn. Bhd. [2010] 8 CLJ 629 that, only in the most appropriate of cases the Rama Chandran (supra) approach is applicable. Cases involving issue of public policy, national interest, public safety or national security are not amenable to the approach taken in Rama Chandran (supra). [17] Founded on these principles, this court will now proceed to analyse the grounds presented by the applicant in this application for judicial review. Analysis and Findings [18] In order to consider whether these applications would warrant an order of certiorari, this court referred to the provisions of the Education Service Disciplinary Board Regulations 1994 (“the 1994 Regulations”). [19] As the first respondent gave a decision pursuant to subregulation 11(2) of the 1994 Regulations, it is pertinent to refer to the 1994 Regulations on the procedural requirements governing the disciplinary appeal proceedings before the first respondent. S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 [20] In this respect, regulations 14 and 15 of the 1994 Regulations provide: “Regulation 14. Procedure of appeal. (1) An appeal shall be made in writing by an officer referred to the regulation 13 (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") to be Disciplinary Appeal Board through his Head of Department within fourteen days from the date on which the decision of the Disciplinary Board is communicated to him in writing. (2) The Head of Department shall, not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the appeal from the appellant, submit such appeal to the Disciplinary Board together with his comments. (3) On receipt of the appeal under subregulation (2) the Disciplinary Board shall cause to be prepared a copy of the records of proceedings of the Disciplinary Board, including the grounds on which the Disciplinary Board relied upon in arriving at its decision. (4) The records of proceedings prepared under subregulation (3) together with the grounds of decision and the appellant's appeal shall be sent to the Disciplinary Appeal Board not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the appeal by the Disciplinary Board. Regulation 15. Hearing of appeal. (1) Upon receipt of the documents, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Appeal Board shall convene a meeting of the Disciplinary Appeal Board to consider the appeal. (2) The Disciplinary Appeal Board shall decide an appeal solely on the merits of the grounds of the appeal without receiving any further statement or evidence. S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 (3) Notwithstanding subregulation (2), the Disciplinary Appeal Board may, at its sole discretion and subject to the appellant's right of being heard, call for any statement or evidence from any person if it is of the opinion that it would be fair and just so to do. (4) After considering the appeal, the Disciplinary Appeal Board may- (a) remit the case to the Disciplinary Board for reconsideration; (b) confirm the decision of the Disciplinary Board; (c) confirm the decision of the Disciplinary Board as regards the appellant's wrongdoing, but vary the punishment to that of a lesser one; or (d) reverse the decision and punishment of the Disciplinary Board and acquit the appellant. (5) The decision of the Disciplinary Appeal Board shall be final.” [21] Based on the abovementioned regulations, first respondent in dealing with the appeals made by the applicants shall consider solely on the merits of the grounds of appeal without receiving any further statement or evidence. The documents and/or information available before first respondent would be a copy of the records of proceedings of LTPPKS1 and how LTPPKS1 arrived at LTPPKS1 Decision. [22] In the representation for appeal submitted by Sakthi and Letchumy respectively, it is observed that both of the applicants did not address the issue on the new schools mentioned in the Second S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 Charge preferred against each of them but rather, launched their attacks on the alleged misconducts of SJKTLSR Headmistress and challenged the validity of the Transfer Order against them. The applicants did not address the issue or admit that they indeed are on duty (bertugas) in their new respective schools (except Sakthi who stated that she agreed to report to duty in her new school on a without prejudice basis). [23] The approach taken by first respondent in considering the applicants’ appeal before them are identical upon perusal of the Affidavit in Reply filed by the respondents. The first and second respondents averred that “representasi yang dikemukakan tidak dapat melepaskan Pemohon daripada pelanggaran yang telah dilakukan”. The first respondent and second respondent also averred that “LRTTPP telah menimbangkan rayuan Pemohon sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam surat Rayuan Pemohon bertarikh 29.4.2019 dalam membuat keputusan”. [24] In this regard, this court observes that the 1994 Regulations do not compel first respondent to give their reasons in arriving at the first respondent decision. [25] With regard to the Third Charge vis-à-vis the allegation of insubordination for failure to comply with the Letchumy Transfer Order and the Sakthi Transfer Order, this court alluded to the case of Kamaruddin Sharif v. Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis and Kerajaan Malaysia [2023] 1 LNS 1287 where the court stated: “The law in regard to transfer orders in the civil service is trite. Employment in the civil service is at the pleasure of the Yang di- Pertuan Agong. It is the Government that decides on the transfer S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 of civil servants and the courts do not question whether the transfer is reasonable or not. To interfere with transfer orders would be an usurpation of the Government’s function. A civil servant must obey the instructions issued on transfers and failure to do so would be an act of insubordination. … A civil servant must report for duty in accordance with the transfer order unless before the date an officer is required to report for duty, there is a deferment of the date of transfer or change in the transfer order upon request. If there is none, the failure to report is, for the sake of repetition, an act of insubordination. In such situations it is incumbent on the head of department to take the necessary action against the officer who fails to report for duty.” [26] What can be gleaned from the above excerpt is that a Transfer Order is not reviewable and failure to comply with the same amounts to insubordination. [27] The applicants have in their affidavits averred that they have made several attempts to appeal against the Transfer Order issued against them. The applicants agreed that their first appeal to the Kuala Selangor District Education Office have been rejected. However they proceeded to appeal against the decision for the Transfer Order. [28] Sakthi had particularly exhibited her letters to the Director of the Selangor Education Department and various personnel within the third respondent such as the Head Director of Education Malaysia, the Deputy Education Minister 1, the Head Secretary of Education S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 Ministry of Malaysia, the then Minister of Education, the then Deputy Education Minister 2. The appeal process continued until July 2017. [29] It is noted that the Head of Department of the new schools which the applicants were supposed to report duty to seem to have no issues with regard to the failure of the applicants to report for duty. [30] In their comment to the Disciplinary Appeal Board (first respondent), the Headmistress to which the applicants are supposed to report duty to, had done the following: (i) the Headmistress for the school which Letchumy was supposed to report duty to had made a remark “dipanjangkan” (forward) whereas; and (ii) the Headmistress for the school which Sakhti was supposed to report to has in her comment stated that she is prepared to accept Sakhti and that “pelanggaran disiplin berlaku di sekolah lamanya iaitu di SJKT Ladang Sungai Rambai”. [31] Pertaining to the applicants’ appeal against the Transfer Oder, there was no reply from any of the respondents. It is observed that neither Sakthi nor Letchumy had reported for duty at the school they were transferred to. In the view of this court, the applicants should have reported for duty at the respective schools even if they had lodged an appeal against the Transfer Order. As teacher and public servants the applicants were bound by the Transfer Order. [32] The applicants raised some other issues which could be succinctly dealt. On the issue of proportionality the applicants averred that the S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 punishment meted out are too heavy despite there are certain more heavier offences committed. On this issue, it is appropriate to refer to the case of Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 CLJ 577, where it has been decided that in hearing administrative determination of public bodies are constrained to confirm the findings in disciplinary hearings unless there was a fundamental procedural flaw. In the event the court finds that the charges against the applicants are not a case which is suitable for review, then this particular ground ought not to be addressed. [33] With regard to the issue on conspiracy, the applicants averred that the SKJTLSR Headmistress has conspired with the officers and acted unfairly towards them and that the decision of the first respondent is subsequently been tainted. The applicants however are unable to produce any proof evidencing the same. Therefore, this ground is dismissed by this court. [34] Pertaining to the issue of fiduciary duty, the applicants subsequently complained that the respondents have breached their fiduciary duty in not responding to the applicants. This court is unable to understand how this is relevant in a judicial review application. The complaints are the ones surrounding the SJKTLSR and failure on the part of the respondents to address the same ought to have been determined in another forum. [35] Another issue raised by the applicants is regarding whistle-blower protection. This court is of the considered view that the application of judicial review concerns not on the protection of whistle-blower but rather on the decision making process. This ground is therefore a non-issue. S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 [36] Regarding the ground of legitimate expectation, the applicants also averred that the issue of legitimate expectation shall apply. For legitimate expectation to arise it must be from someone who has a bearing or power over the body to which the legitimate expectation could be expected. The Minister of Education is neither the first respondent nor the LTPPKS1. This court is of the view that legitimate expectation ought not to have arise against him. [37] The applicants have also in their appeal representation slammed the LTPPKS1 for failing to establish an Investigation Committee. The counsel for the applicants cited Thirunavukarasu Angappan v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 604 in support. In my considered opinion, this is a case distinguishable from the case cited by the applicants. In Thirunavukasaru (supra), it involves complex issues which requires the explanation from experts, the expertise of which is not equipped by the Board. In the case before us, there is no issue on complexity other than a whole lump of facts being lump together. Furthermore, it is the discretion of the Disciplinary Committee to decide if an Investigation Committee is required or not. It is therefore not a mandatory requirement or procedure to establish the Investigation Committee. This ground is in the view of this court, untenable. Conclusion [38] This court is mindful this application for judicial review pertains to the livelihood of the applicants. Nonetheless, for the above mentioned reasons, this court is satisfied there is no illegality, S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 irrationality or procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness which would enable this court to grant an order of certiorari. This application for judicial review is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. Date: 22 December 2023 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 BA-25-35-05/2021 BA-25-36-05/2021 Counsel: For the applicant: Vijayaletchumi a/p Muniandy, Tetuan Zarina G.T. Vanan Vijaya Advocates & Solicitors Unit 1E, First Floor, Wisma YPR, No. 1, Jalan 2/87 GA, Off Jalan Syed Putra, 58000 Kuala Lumpur. zgvv.legal@gmail.com + 06 017-2280 529 For the respondent: FC Ahmad Hanir bin Hambaly @ Arwi, Liyana binti Muhammad Fuad Bahagian Guaman, Jabatan Peguam Negara No. 45, Persiaran Perdana Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya +6 03 8872 2000 S/N XhOLRGcbkeqENUBGbptDw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-45A-64-04/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHAMAD ARIF BIN SHAMSUL ANUAR

Dangerous drugs — Trafficking — Drugs (cannabis) in a box found on a coffee table in the living room of a house— free and unrestricted access of house by others - Whether sufficient to show possession — accused appeared shock upon arrest – police read caution under s.37A(1)(b) DDA 1952 – whether mere reading of caution sufficient - accused led police to the house where he handed over box which contained cannabis to police – whether amount to conduct under s.8 Evidence Act 1950 – inference of knowledge

22/12/2023

YA Dr Wendy Ooi Su Ghee

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=953d6750-b6b9-4e7b-9bea-7cf94bcce8f3&Inline=true

22/12/2023 11:00:27 BA-45A-64-04/2022 Kand. 58 S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BA—d5A—6d—lJI/2022 Kand. 58 22/12/2013 ,1vJJ-27 . mun my aunt macs uwvm uma m umwm want: my am mueons man my tr)/um unmet «ma»: uru-mwunn: umyruynyvtll '49l3Mmnx‘uia1:Iuep51lnK mu u-co mm: 955 mm: suzlu-413 mrmmm wpspmpndulm mu»-aw um: um; ma mum-s u--Sew mm: m ‘Awewa um-ma we/ea W uamrss ‘=4-=r Buearvs mm az/ /sn WM 9 on u: Danna no r fiwnx WIIwEl‘>zaz1D<1wIA0Nz ma mm mews. - smo..,o, ss pea: pssnzxxz a-4: mesa name 8-41 LN mu I0 (2)85: new" 5I|1Bfl5‘U|"|‘1 we (aw Ni.) 29:» my sfimu snmaéuaa aux ;o(2)lL)Ese sxapun icusuu uE — sgqeumm p fiz-955 m 01 ‘sfimp snmafiuen uv§u\>10meAnmM pammp ism pesrms mu M uonznnwzug NvwI)wH§u'!? m:sv1v (S159-0|-|0|I.£8=d)1'ON) avnmnnsmus ma smv avwwova NVMV1 uvuvmyvuuaa vaunv zz Mr»-rev-Va unvuaruv cmiuaa Mvsna ‘IIIHVG zlosunas Iuasan mrlvu |Il\1'|V HVHS Ia vAv1wu l99NI1 uvwvxuvw vnnvcl ‘ sw uecmmzsnmuxnzssamam -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm u| peddam sense] pfiup ul >1:m|q pammumo e peugmuoo um)u1 umwm (l Ldi Esq 3-weld ssmdxa n r 1261299 E Iewm 0: um vi-mo uiux mm.-.1 “ummd my, twom am ueuum a1aMDId|maM::ne\4|uo WM rjus/\n u pnpuzu pun swgmaxd me: am 10 wow 5|1lM|ELfl m emu eluoo em um; (um) xnq Jnnpn ummq u an gem: petrraoe em ‘amfiw aouo pemae em WA Jeqxaflm sssgwald pgei am pmelua new new sm Due owm ueguee panes mm: am am um sasymiud was am nunup am peuado puma: sup ‘w/u,ue uodn ieunuxw as » oz vmqn mam >100)/‘mane! an; -(,s gmmd pies eta) mouenes ‘em bueqns man ‘an; rsn uauar ‘g cm se mm asnnu 2 cu wee: sw we ouvu DFIUBII1 vesrwae an 'Deirmn au: 64 Luann»: pres aw.) zsm vau taxnvu: 51 Jaw" umlneo eusanbeu am new new mm: um!-A snesrme 9U3|11NJ[(§'L)ldl 5/(s)1(g|aAgy2 munq 2 pezgei oLMd'1sAsMnH ‘puma; elm nuusmmmuu mmou emu». pspnpmxi gem pwme au} 10 uwees Kpuq V [.1 puma am Uanuy |nsIum.|s mq W pzmeuaw sz psm|uap!xs1e\ am new £e|ew 3:4; mm Euusaue mum squad aux sauasmm pmnpmun am new paxpaus pslesdde mm. uem Asbaw am pwaamdda Kmvns mas) sm puz WM ‘gm. Bugsas m um um, pnwfius weaken mew ;c new 3 ‘uomwasqo aw mu! saymuu (UL) WI woqv uoflueles ‘Mar fiuewvs ‘L/L a; nanny‘ ‘Mar means an uvuzsnpuuna u=sEME>1 ‘L/L u=I=r fiuute awed hm am.) an 000 Jequmu uoueusxfiau Euueau Ezzsa Enpmadmujna anqmz no uapzuesrw us pewnpuucuobuslas '-Aer mans Om ‘ualswq uoruafiuss/\u\ |Eu§Auu:) sauomemuuv ma nun; new (an mm 10 was» an nun m um) um» wow ma uepaeus wwsdsm ‘um no": vmqe :2 W02 w :0 no [:1 mzmuwagus pus am-ug: N1!EH1aoueP!I\a uaunansma emu 12! um uoglnu ma sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm u ‘nan! Sm sue peimxm aux oz Psimsyuuupva tam uonnea pgas em yen. pegsnzs mu :1 was Sun ‘mm pwumuswemqe an "Mon mm vs ZS‘6l vuu1u)I¢)azc'i 18:2-An ummmo uomsyuywpe am no ME] p se|d!auyd am An pawns ‘en-4; [n] ems amou pm! .z9sL Msuscues ufinva mv ram) an: uslusr MIMEH 20 name ms);-may ummmauu, ;o eaemd a|flms sydnult e um! slam n ‘us; u. ‘uonneo was 914; paoxsnapun posncnz aux um; 40 pssnaas am 0; peumdxa sem uaunaa was en} mu. aauspgna an one am maul piinsae mu :2; pm sammw eauspgna an sum aem ‘wine my sun;-q esea sun u\ [22] wmdwrmu M An wow-M Avwwd M7 mm mm mm M mn pmxw-up-= we new Kuwwd :0 a; no/M96 w my Hz-noun: am sum was wawu wmau musw-uavw pew-can aw Ulllwsluwlflua cu in) Int td-amt; mm) :53 rm almu nun nu UHIH/UH wuw neaomwlwuedpnrnm MI! umumnw us but [mama Mu :. pm 5! uonm am my! me smnsuu awn Ilotlaauduq nu; ya piinnzu -.4; 01 peumydxa ..q My mum ma pa Nauanbasuua 9.4 momma: nq mu pmnu uaunoa aw 1a Auypan -mu rims no slsmzld.-1 4 M aw: "EN a: new; aw uajuundn w win yaw ‘abundant! nu: puma: sm uamza wt um aau-om sum tau ...4.m put mm ..,.,a mm mm aqua Madam M um mm In) ‘cMn¢1u] vv wau m rm 1[uozlu.4>1 -M A-mu A 4.4 m pm Ira; mo-A v.'JH°‘7‘A I-wuw ulurqzz mm psww M ‘zsaun JIPWV moved 2 a: now: or» mvdxe 0: xuawnunh-I -w no ‘/4w-mm mu aw Izzi N uecmnmzsnnwuzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! u was: fiuwxex svu we emu SEM n -pa: nemae uw new uasunoa acuawh am xq papuaxuoo sum u ‘aouqep am An pa6ua||IaI4:) A||ua\ueuaA 5!». pasmoe em in mm tn JBIW venues: sum ma mun Own: M: We . an [at] and) ma saw? I940 5“!P"9H "om va 9 s Japun unpuoo an Dsiuncme pesnaaa euuo nae pyzsalme 334; -mu m] mm 01 Ma u uumueu nus sasnuam pm am pa mum flu_w[ Bu) IA! alas; eauoa am mm; Old WI fiumaxd on we spasnonz an» we ssmwsm ms: nu» ox mop sun Deuedn assume em zsasxu-am was :44» :7! mm mum Sm pus mm pa} psrsncme am my (H! (U — [mu ampym smMd ua pnieq pasnoas em |:n|sEs p-mama ueeq Den END em :0 66va\Muu>1 :2-4| pamunvw uuunassmd mu [Lt] 'paI\md sq 0; sun naanaae am 1» mm em no eDne\M<w>1 :0 wswawe am 'Z96L vac: (pugs Aspun umxdmnsexd am no Me) mu mp umvnesmd I141 sv [ggz nflP0lI-mu)! -aousmmu Avon: sun mm; panmoxs put: unuz) suu Aq mqgssumpuu» paw sw )o5ua-/as Ms/‘ Bunqns mm ‘aa/9 rsn war '9 oN mus/a u: usunu Ip efuefl 2,».-_ pasnacm sq; KL} yueu|a|e;: am xusuumaav awkssnupe Ian ampalsu S1 was] auma sgu Au/pun omu nu Demos eu; Aq spun xuemauaxi mauam ‘uaunea munuzqe amsnnhm sq) ,9 aamammuau am a. anq [55] sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm at so: w wnv-ms am an buruavuad owu w eouwvw em ‘filfiuwumvv ‘a _pN:: _ ume\4u|ssa|un pIudea:IEaqou|seiseu|!Mecg|ad;o souepme 3141 1mm) uy pomluon A w|n:nuJd auqng nu-mum lzvl _';.w1dw<:I no /fijlmuau mm. ‘mmmaym no way» was UIW ‘um D 1-samm '3‘?°d - ABVIWM ‘mum AW ;a nauupma am we-qma mulwl 10 mums Aw »o Mum}: In: M. pus uuamw ‘wswnwtuua /o mom W: m nwdaau av Mow n ma )0 pm-«M mu: a; -z-«rem aw 1o mum sun mmw : ma no/rtmwexe —tmxI Kn um»: :1 ,9 ‘MWM mm M aapwumw I1 smpwa Wu ‘tsmoala mm MIMW Kn mmuau-2: umwfiwwlzslzilfilrs aw bu rv new mm mm lap mu m M1 -M 6-mun nu: owl mm-7 Filmy ;a nun: -mu -um two [man uwspwm Mac 5 ms In :41: say we ‘fifirdexv sq m v0u‘ai1»oa;o :, munurlw gm wow am my flwdmnlmm 2 ms nu s4-s Hun us:-ma sq -mwy M mu m xsmu mu-we M syqsqmmw A/ruweuw uzu :, W flmujmuoi ms ssmuw Iapag : Maw. smoun; 5: mm. 7* mmm ‘wsmflnnlx u. uapeugunzxs sum Aq uaxaus 51 J0 aauapwe mum Aq pexclpeaum s: u u peuoeoos an D\l'Im4s momma» em \au m Aalumw Jepwsuoa ssmsquemu mm won mu; 2 mama“ saumsu! my am an peuzme eq mucus sssssuum amwd M1 seummnsauv:-4| new wxurn L9! rm | lawn] uv vnwnwln "A Auuuwlmd auqnd w umsnen euuu sum: Lprmmmn S! was sun 1”] 'uowaounE) and um: Dunfluu 5: am: on ma venue-4 pesrme am new m aouenwa snwxa psfiue-he-4a so-map eu- ’smU_ 'uapp|uun pus mm mm: em m a|q2| Hanan am ua scum ma Mes au sum 154» am new no»:-Mums isms finunv P9N5|?(l>Md ‘we; HI [ml mm a. Jaw » puau pus ems) segue em mm] am an mu o; pssnczaz em 10] Aussaoeu cu em emu! 'e:uuaH tesnuem mes mu w mom 6uw| em ul e|qE| sewn am no snag/v.10 flfiuymfi sz.-A 1‘ ‘uappmun sum ma Mun mu am pm, cum N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm n was n|4|u1||E pip panrmce nu; ‘pins: fllusq ulmwm pile sum am p we Mfiugsudms ‘pssrlmxa mu :2. pm Sam wanna was en: mus ‘mmd 0: fimpmoe M ’m/ma on me It mu:-4 we mu-um on“ own mow bum aw H1 ewe: saw: em uwom aw: (MMHEUM we sssumevd mas em oz wiel fluwwm nu. pus gum; pa sewsm mm m meuuea sew. mam pends: (9 persncxve am ‘am ayqzqmdmw Auuamuug 5‘ .. ‘um; u‘ ‘uosew A: sum... cu §_ e1eu|sW9 man sun ‘sfimp snmefiuep Au: mm sum! is: mu-Mun: moqs mes wu sum pnnaoe aw sv ml pesnane aux ox uulmsa pies am pee: Mum mmd M1 .2; Buuuotnv pasnaaa ma :7) mm: M com we saw. uousann cu we; m -sump Run MI flnoqsilsum am us Dishes: an: al (I)u onb on vexed ow/ma new pemmns ua W [Emma Jauun; e ‘xus/us Ana .4 muss sq] nu wens sum 0 W” ;o Kuomusa) |Bm am SE ma 3 n) D|Md Aq pafipm uwdej smwd an) m peuouuem Aluo um name pm: em 10 eouevvxa aw uamsa Dams sv 19>] mm a; u pepueq pus mam bum sq) uw ewe) aeuoo nu) um» old my peume am 'sesuuaJd me: am o: /uws Due Mme uudn sasxmam pges an» n: men) fiulpgzl syn pue WM pa| pasncme mp 'snIu_ yasmmd pms em u| suzauuea sum 949:4) mu: vsudm nesnaos Btu ‘nesnaos em on uounso plea em D591 eu mus xsuu DlMd 5o Auowwaau am SEM n In] sfiulnuu suwauc; am am» um cw: ‘mm em w moss; us veonpns souamna ID MIIFIW em Hm uatneaoz vssnaas em 10 nnnuno em av flu!-«awed acuepym gm,“ ;n wamssisse pm! Aumuas uodn 'aouaH ["1 'ps:n:>ae em w yea sq; uo sfipawoux Jaw} o; aauapyxe Awe am 5; ij usqm Auepsasa ucunea put! me: welfi um p(~mm|rua§ aq 0| sw pasrma sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 51 ‘tum syn I» lnzozl Aoanoowlq :||qngABuuu9 unug uI1ea:):Aeme Aq uugssassod mo e|ru one .2. puz pesme em Aq tbrup aw p sfipnwmbg pm? Awwno ‘xmum uswzsxse cu vesmxn ens-4 mm sound H-4| :2-4| sum: 3N|l?5\)‘=s/ul! |E|p\ we Buumem mg Jo/Due sgsflauz mumasug Eu: ‘sruu nu -puma: am mm; was sunmad Jaw) mm as o; emiwsoce wow mm. 2 ug emu) aaupa e no pe:)E|d sum am u. who; may slqeuuea aux ‘aim sun u; '1aAaMnH my pasnm em Ru \uoM finned xx mad: am m 10 pasmce sq] m Apuq am am: paddias s a pasnncz us ,a umssemu paausmu 1:26:19 say u\ puno. mm samp paufindml aux M ‘aausuuw nu -em Mane pm? um m Messeoau mu 5! aausp\AeuAudAebI.m)El4IP8Ium9 [5,] musmnxn su pus mg ‘mg no punoj wu elem pasnaoe am ;a VNQ pus suzymsnuu aux ‘em uoqeumxe mm auunp pnajfila WM ‘we; m M puz mg no sxuudlefiugewuunsnp m ps>¢L7n\AaAo peq ueowo fiuuefiusawl aux] |LMa sn Jewew us-4| Jo; Ltd tum; uene we ma mm; paw sm auydjaflug ya wuapgna nu ‘aseo sun u| waxeunuown [gy] ma pemueu pEI4 uunn s/uosnsd ;a mumu am uwmzusasa In mass 0%]: Wm 91., mm, (Ana u) pew: sauumesug Ana ,9 acuapme N» ‘we; Ul vafisuv we DLlV\d 0| ma we own Memo! um vesmae em 1s|41aqmA;uaI« 0| ss 05 ‘aim: mu m iuumsgsse 12915 ,o ueaq emu p|noM um um; (Ana 1.; pang] imudjafiuy Ans p aauapgna am ‘no swam up] we we szuumsfiulj sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! 91 . pm-mv no mum: pawn M a: smamu; Imw nauulnultllllmwmdam mm psnpmulncnwsvfitawiltmaa ummp oq I/qsuaruw we w/um saunas»: mo mm mm :1 Alma mum [gm dplifpms r mumw mums ul!rIm441 fluuynatrjaadrivjnuvmg umym ow mu dams nn Innmhou-ouw man; A am mo in av snu '. <61 9596 IE 5II!IM1I\0; WI Pewnb Ififidfivw WW2) SW SIBMM £9 r1III Z lcnozl low 7 l"4OM°)1l°°1 w man man sexdmuud sun In Dawns [ssl meal Bums: sgu pus mm Aq punog :5». am ‘Mpuoosi pus pesnoae em Au mum ea ma pepueq sw om -mm; pie) sauna aw um um»: Mqeuasem an seaumewl um ‘/musnbasuog) arses mu pa saaumsm _ em pus mapym em ,n 1931 am mm In m o; wees um seon Dasnaae e-um lilflflugd am no aw-d 10 eouawe eta ivuu unoo mu ‘seuupuu Dlfivs/vane aux uo 935:}; [951 9523 umlnassmd aqua anuzuzu as" u! deb 9 ye‘ aauenyxe \1Nc| 10/pus luudmbug ma ,0 aauesqe em ‘uans w [as] .:zamPm~=1m1MIumM swdnmgwmvm-Ursaemtax-srnm-anmnuvnwzuvumvu .u. Kq ,,.,,,..,., man an yzu W -2: mm mm «mm nwwuv ruumsauumzdmsno-menmod-un=wAuawauaaauemrou mm a mum W4 no xwawn Amp -vr xaa/paw um: um my p-v mu-was amxeunowaa-mam onsetaq sulntneutrov -Aeuvmam )1 ‘won um um W! ;I mm-mu um-1235-Iu 2-2; PM m, mama ,a sand rem ; was was or -am ow m away -:4: Dwaptsuaa who man was ..m,,, cm ,1 =50!!! palusq nu: ma aapsm wane; as ms-4 umo Imps: em mew Lsv rm w [wnzl J°I"="!"-“A =-Hand A "A Bum ulna u| uaes ea he: snsfleua xuumefiuu ;o nulruodnu sq; [:51 N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm a mu sanp pm; .1 an un muuem pie: em fluvneq us Eiuymue uusled mm In Duper: Kq ‘eruu page: sun smaq emu) saw was am no rm ma Bum mm fimapvxe on nus IIM emu ‘souenma mm am New :2-4: Iusmom E M; aunmss us/\3 Lz0Z'Ll'Zu -as umuswnn u; Kep sq; in: sssuuwd was aw Ewes: Due fiuunum um [um (I!) am slam pasnace sq; mu; paanppa aauapym Du sm emu (1) — mu :02; M ;o mam u| eouvuauun vsaunn m an: suuusenb awn) o; memiue aIu_ [09] Lunuujaya [mam new no mes) bunseue sm Due DLM-1 K: Dans: saw u mam ‘N5 xenon was am no ma SBM flue: MOH Lana!» Hams was am an name on: as». UWM (H) ;a|‘l¥I ac-Juan pm: aux uo ma psaanu am we suy gem am up — ems amexem suoutallb uuwano; sub ‘aazgd 11L7cI)|E1u 51:49/«E ;u uyeuo amp MOM m [.91 (m) Azp awe: ma um as . moqe )9 Ines) mu pus: mm Aq sasuuam am am 0) wfinmq slam pesnaol em ‘Jiuemmu um no gum, sum Euuauxmuaug fiumxou mum um 00': @ pzuzu go no mflumes ‘Mar Bueqns W ‘H ue|Er ‘Mar Eiuzqng dafl ueuxsnpuued ueseMz)1 ‘W uemr male panama sum pasmne eu) mu; we. pivldsgpun ue usge S: H [us] new: M14! 2‘ Zld — uLd #2 sfips\Mou>1 we -wlrsemd em I» swarm: em mauuw mu >1-Au sun ‘was peumwnp: muses: up 99593 [As] weal Eulmm sm Due ox/ma Aq puno) sem sxqauueo paufindlm aw Deumuoa ucmm. om aw pmdrrpe sq pymus pasnm am ox auqemm ls-am aaumsm sq. mans ex; [:91 sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm -amen: puma, sfirup en] ,a nmssassau m stun sasuumd pges an) Jam [manna awmmaa pus ssaaoa sen emgexmu pasnmz em ‘saqmmd was an. :2. Ken en; nu peinaoa an, ems mnx Dammqns one naunoesmd an; my ‘am But: mm ‘and 5c asuw am wu ax pesnoos am mu. :4 ma pus "Mn ;o sonepwa a|4l mm; unnmp aanaxnn. an. ‘spmm muw n| am: )2 ml: s. ad pne um ‘um yo law» en» 64: IN! 5‘ umwui Imam mm-M mu [ts] sasunexo me: am In pnunaq uay mam swan asmu -Amnanbssnug ‘s md pges am 31:29] [am new was mac » saeq :msE|d ‘syemsd ‘saxoq ‘sfiaq Jyau) yam Buuq .7. name; Anerucre (usru-an was an! ox Nswe emu aw snowed asoul 91) yanm em men» SEm\|§V|G1S||ll'IlJ exam emu: new [Md ya aenepma am -um am] in SI aanapp am An 0 H W Jaunnu am] am uz um|ua|uua mu my naunaeawd ed! M hennnaxs £4 mu pue pannauenann um 59». MM Kq aonepws mu yew pawn sq m 51 .1 well was en: saayw 0| mg amen Anemia am in mumo emu en; Jeuzaqm uuguaa .7. emaun szm sqsu-rm PSUBIGD aw uum muss new mum ‘me; u: zssne me: an: mus mm snap (5; sum ilagmmd me: any ua suanfibwsenug um paum Mun (mama fiuI)efl!|ssAu;) MM ‘sapgsag m) w -1 or v 03 m :1 no r nssmsq Kumnoweo 'umxsenI7 us Aw am no sesfluejd was an» m mace peu can sue an vem eanema on ssm mstu I sesuuald pm: emu. mama ,a Essen: pspmsslun pne as» am so M31/\ nu and m dlumaumo au» as pesnm aux xnu N LlGcflbvnZsflEMnz5SlmBw Nuns smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm n ‘luv Udmnlrpl urn uu .4»: mm; mm. yup ..«.. 'MwnAcqu mm mm wan Mu: mm m: ‘mu-I Buuu mm-z to .r ‘m...ue.ne«ea»a ms nu»: WM usmua r lawn! w nmunl mm vuuuv uumnvutia murx am my u zu mmnqes mam am 5 (sum w new ug uoweuuum nuunv scuspl/E ya saIuN sum L9 and en) new Anew mu pmca 9»: 512 a: mop pebl sun, ems Anew» mu sew eu van: Dewjsap pus uvsww vauauoaman mu ‘maven iesuum mes a-mu -now Bum: em m esnmz em W». pauliuc psu 5/W5 wousenb ug wapmu} em emyeq mfigu sq] no '9/ma an Isunpmae mu; pswmqns asp! uaunoama em us] wan: wuum ewuam 5- am! sun uo uunmssmd mu Aq pwsgaj |uaIun5AE em ipuuunon suu ‘mfiuwpmaw Ins] peuugusmanoqe suwea (9) mo, awn pEa|suI seamen was am an same anal: uaul Wlum suwea mom ‘ass: am ;; a:aM uoo ‘Nnooce nun, wag eq 01 ye/\ ecu pemuanp swag xax euuo . and am ‘suIDun¥ sum W see;-um was no nu W 9 Wm ea: Asun Sums and — ma w umsmsod -I4 sq Kllenba we Plum we we MM ‘gmd ‘pesnaaa am mo» uede |EI4| Mann] ammaul punom n Isa! waueqz pm, sum‘ p uoyssaasad ug sq sum ‘sasuuexd ml: sq: Jaw mum amdnuoo ssu ssmmajd was am a. £9)‘ sq. spwu ;a».am4M um uaelu anowaup mnum n -umsswqns wognaesma H41 mg fimuoseea ;n sun am no pages [pg] N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm pmm mu Aq ad — mg 50 umssessod qsuuezsa 0| Jame u| uounaesma exam pmwd sq mun pasnaoa mu on em Sega: pg“ am JE|rVflfl.|Ed w seamen ms: N! 10 same: MAIKHNX9 emu IZLI ‘wow sum an m awe: eauoa aux no Dune; sfimp am to umesassma amsmcmi u! sq :2» names em pun in eyes sq mu mnam u uamrueu m mom a-mu sq) pus wsgmsm pgzs mg a. ssame papuusanln pue am; pan ow mum mam menu ‘pssnoae sq) umuauz New sages u] [m pefiuogeq u mm c. MDLIX ma Jeluslm an amp: u uses emu As-4; Asuxewa uounaaswd am /Iq pm: mu ma w-«mus wu ue em aw one um ‘9/«M ‘lune Au! in [nu mom |Suw| em on we’-velpe psaem em Malum ;uamamne um: am an o; tatymam was an on mm nu ‘LZOZ wzo on mun mp am-4| av aw van) ceumea we 5/ma Izaz us-mum” Auze m LZDZ Jeqopg m maul IIAHM nu yam Klwqgssod : um um am. um. pus sasuumd was an: Dalsma 15:: ea new -mun s-M eu zeuv LM:U0 Auoumasx am am u ‘axazeul unmpne u: [an] 'sas1ma1d mes am In Inn men mm pesnaoe aux saw as filuo ‘grow an fiulmuaua ‘smu Lzuz 0| m un paauemuma mane. am mew (mun) wwesmv Aausuel spgn efley‘ Buueysd ‘mnguwmcpuoo eu¢lB)4 PBS Wound |E IUSMIUEGE ua paws; pm; pasnaae em mm Fwdswpun 5; N name An: 14 [.39] 1136951: Erllumui) vuelxwawuoa "Mflunw 'zrflW’I9PtJ Mn‘ r me: new ma ede mg mp mmn/my Juan; 5 N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 2 on new mmw emu: aw mu ssauou-um mam Y!M1!'1fiNH|ls1VI|"WV ma M42: newweunw 40 pm! I9/ma) zwzv wnv-av um um: uewumunw Amen ‘suns (z) om mu |l|!M mow Haunw uounaaaom e 5:: vanes 08]! sm (WM) W uugq usppaj semen puas eu; M: Jeumo an; [5] Ed uqupq se pewem pue pmapua; oele sum uodm mmwuav ass» vac: suuoz Siepun amp smnefiuep s m I40HW*lQEuuEa [p sulmfl z 955 sq m mam puno1sus‘Jm4 omapuiu semp euuc sgsfiyzmz Imdn mu. pawsm 9/md was #1 sgsqau: JO) exer Euumed ‘wauluadeq Mmweua M In 19/war ueueus nw nun: new-2N mnua wamsuo 9 01 ma PSDUEH m€'MlZLd)Pi1!'5 sfimp u-uar-mm em ‘LZOZ wen no In] [11-U94] FWD) azam yd — ow azaum iaigmmd piss any n} mL7p2m| am W sudmfiauwd 31001 sq: mew sesuusnd pvt-:5 eu. 0| mm omu MUM awe HM-1‘:moq mm ® moan so no [(s-mud] Ll/Md A-I smou mm ® want so Im new» a-M zm we we hm ‘(9*|}Ld #7 S|4¢BJ5°l°l|d [LI (ma) sax Bums swim News Emma en-A Nrwu uuuz © lZOZ u 20 no H mm mzpes psfis mm euam qewexg mlaadsm mama auuesuswg am a) van»-eu mm mm sweu mu (1 M) mm in vefinm ism LZ/EEODW/B rsn aw Medan eanod v vwsrme em um Jauvafim u-mums sowed em E-leans sun at wfinmq new mam nszxas sueu em luv (and) uspe/as Ieleuss Buuog spin penadam aw pazges sum! am w an ucuees V my ‘film acuod em Ll! (“Md Aq pane: up man: Kl)‘ J33 mu kuw Jeu|slSL7| 193 ‘NJ, Zid PU! Hd ‘Old DSZVSS new DDMA ’P""°D “M 5‘-‘|l5“!“‘!15“| I-me Euyuwu mew sesuumd mes am no pavgnpuoa slam qcuees V [I3] 'p\e4 aux N am. em 1:: sesuusm me: am u| ems am) an sem almu (yd) exqauun sq m pepedans awsmd xumedsuan sw LlGcflbvnZsflnMnz5SImBw ‘Nata sew ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! xz ‘my awes euuu KZTVBE 6 law. pea; mu 5 zapun um-issued uw scuspu mm; mm [an sm an; m perpgnmxw mq amlma fiuppmeu Inn y) psumboe 9‘! an zqm vuu etM0(E)1L)E6i: S mun flumnmmn uum uemuo “wad a JD] mnsnun wu 5! u sm4_|_ limp eI4)u|nug>1amea sq muasmeu wu pm uoqeisvaod u! s\ awn uosxed s wq smp aqua uogssesind ugeq/(mzsseaau Isnm 9395241 cum uosma a esneaoq s_ _ ; 6un13WE’I| Jo pusmqa an sq use New ‘umssaassodp xuawaga mu ya aauem eupug‘/qfiu\p1:xr>V [gu 5U|1I=ullU. puma: am Kq ad - mg m afipewnux pue umssuaofl |z'.u§Aud peup ya waulaya aux usuqem a; pine] seq uunn:-eawd am mm moment stuunn; 1. pntncne am An men sauna sq. JE|n::u.Ied m pus sasmuu was em on name oAIsn|m<H anmd m vans; sen wwmeswd wnem unoa mu m Euwug em 5 «was paumqwnpe sunrseal sq) ua mag [91,] _pMqnlwo3 auua nalsvanod m an no a-mswus u wanna max 10 um ‘SW9 mu u; u JVW paw: pus mm dumznsxo ‘puevupuoa awn umnaswd swu war mu mamad now a row ‘;,: um ‘mo! na A-W Wmvwa =~:m=~- -q you pew sbmn Dunc uoassihod acumen ynnaaa W D] 5/wrwva nq .....u mm, m Ibmp cw amen mm aw mt! uuw m Fnnurum pa wa yotnaisa-1 mm: . ‘Ma/weuvd Amy ,1 mm m u; .nnn-unnnueuszuu ‘some/vs npnnxa wnfluvvntanq. u.e»4sn»a-mo swesw MW:-In Putnam:-u ‘mm mm uowluw ml!‘-1num59I‘.Mu, . 31 pm , mag ugmlu um ulmmn; vuolnnusmd o||qn.g m (“M new Bu mar nines !Mw«92 WOW flluslam 5»-M-1 nezueumnt iv In] uonnaesma 3441 JD} 552:) nuuuemaqddns m Amp muayep au) mu e. u was am amp mm uuunoasom am ‘sdefl am alum p pus ‘uepmq sun afllmpswp ax uounaesmd am no uuequmoug sjoyuauusw u an N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! zz (Jndwrn a|En)1) saumossv-3 u). moo, uasqm 1w :|ssurv.13 a::ua;a(] Aaqmzuo KJO5VtpV\E5S1 61:15 mfiuuos mm; uemoesm mud Aznaau sup. pemauow up sum snoapug Aw .ummae:wd sawed 19 |EWWO)WE\\1 news 10 was I4 . Jsumssgmm '3 |B\::;pny‘ [33H9 ns |o Acmam "Mu 'v/0 czuz aw ma bexlu tauepep mus ea panes fiuxeq unouum pesmmup pus peugnboe Aqmeu sw pa-sums am ‘ado euup (zmg rs um nouewoooe u| 'psflAEI4:: 5! sq Ipgum w sauago am w mass; u: nesnoee am zsmafls ems; sumd a \4§1||13Jsa nu Wu-2; szu uoguvcxasmd am ‘Emu [ad pasnma am usugziie pawn; ammo am ug Buppyzll we eapewoux ‘uomassod ;o nuswpalbul /uesieoeu em emu‘! Ln papa; seq ucwnescud em mu: unoo Sm; ;o fiugpug am ea u -paanppe asuepyxe uunnaesmd sin ;n mamssssse pus uoneme/xa wnmtxew am uadn In] Ilngsnuluug 'ne>1oAu- an wu»-so 91056180) zsu vau Inn: wen-An Banana» ,4: ucpdmnsmd Mnvuzxs eta ‘uogsses-zoo Iecgsma may 10 Iueume aux 9/mm ax uannoasmd an: m mung sq; :2; am) ‘wane Auz u] (“,1 sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm . aw nun; meet Emma: Stu nus mm: in mun; um um ‘view: ‘emu oz 11 men we awe: scum em and ma <3" mm! Ion wv pssnaoe aw vet» psfiuaueuo one wuewn aux ‘am out: mu ‘sand 10 swwcwnsm mu ;o Mel/\ u. pssnczzvz am in semen mes aqua uomessua msmaxa I4SI\q|?ose on pens; sau ucnnuasmd am new peuuuuzni aenewu menu mu [Lu -saw (9) am An wv sues aI4H01E)LE 5 mp-An ummue mmmuuu am pepaecxe Aufisp -am sums 3955 cm pserme em :0 mlssassnd uv puma; syqauueo .a zunmuz ma :2 pa>qaAu§ am new van (sum: s Jspun Bu!>pweAuo uomauansem em ‘M31 w umumua /(q ‘sauan (ugey V3) osu my magma g-s Jspun unpuoo snu mm; pans,-4 aflpewoux pus pasmae am |su|E6: parmld useq “I4 uoussewod esuepma paqp ‘mm m -sump peuflnduu am y) sfipavmux pus uugasemod |ea|:(ud pau pesnm am van: veuymqni uownaasmd am -ma macaw: am so pus an) N In 1) same» pies su)cMe>1 3 news se». a-4 awwn samumd mes am :2 was an Lies): 53 um. piIM:||E 9% mm cue ‘Jeusermmp ‘dam 5 a su1aup|oqssnmq mas eu mm aadnqg @ sseugsnq auuuu us u1DeA|0AuuseM eu ‘xznzm nzuz 10 met aux uaemaq WM muse: (mm -u-nu um mu mvxau nawwew ‘pivnae em DUE QM: um puau; uzmmu V -sampe; mas sq. em a; sasgmua pm my Kq amp p|nDM spuem ssmd ‘ssslmem me: am ug mama he um pm-3 semefi uomsmd osxs em menu iv AEME sm gm‘, ewyr. 39:: am E-«nee: uv sum was: pm: 5/ma was ac (mm! mvxmz ma we-uzeo-4 'Ju mqqmeu sm oi sesmmu pges am a] Asa e was one gm -am; m gm; ma uq aumsmos pesnaae 3141 xx; pamm suuumu aim] 0; am) 10; no; -4 um; pue uweks ‘spasm sm :2. sasymand pyzs am 0) summ am paws) mam g/W3 mumem was en) )5 gm Mm 5uIAIza1‘A;aAg::adsaA no: we smz un Wlld men» on news am we 9/ma -aw ‘memou ‘am -4 was at» manna «mm mm: mm; seswmam pges sq) m ms sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm 'pa)dupe eq mm pesrme a-4: o» 8K1Emnne;eua aw ‘ssmexa in" ya unwl n n ewe ssuaxam auo usm mu. aq 9134.1; mucus ‘oiw -smm uaaa p eouspma aw uaemq unxuovplmuoa Au: 5) am. mqzaum m mamssms ua elqolxuy nnqmaq] p|naM .. -menus umlnassmfl em Aq pswmpfi eeousaym ,u fiuwmp am We uoumavimd am Kq pane: iwsseuum yo wemssesse pun uo\|an|eAa sngusod e semunuw u ‘Mans: W vouagap em noun Jews oz patnaae cu; uo "an a; Jauxmw Bulmolp mag psusuqasa ussq snau aousne an ,0 sumpeusu; mu ;; usuqmse ax Aap4o m paanppe scuepma uounocsmd em ,0 Auuqzuan pus A|\|]q\ps4a nu; ;o uouamua uuumxem e wuwun cu unoo sumo win any ‘snul m] . sum» was «um 2-2 my: umamupsuua ea nu you mine oslmw mu um um ma nu sea om war; rum: n uaw ‘aw: swmaem: am In mm» m mm. Ioatpma mu )0 uupzmyuo nu ,, Ans/mums 10 Aumema ‘Kyyuuwued pou pun mama pcztmwus eq 0; Elm mm,» 9.4 mu,wa uwurunn Iunuqxiul a no pm-z.nm nu} sum :1 ma suwmewmnww nu ow ll pm -u (94 ans Jew! men an: r13 L lunzl dd A uluow uupuusm ya am mu m unog maps; emu uo Iaap an [an we spam um seq am 5135] swim a mu) peusuei n n ualw aauajep mu Jo; um 0) ix asza ummema Eu) ;o asap an we unoo Sm) w Amp am ‘(:>:::)) 6900 empawd LWWDO em :0 mm: M szammld iv [an MI1 --41 'pe§maE aw wmefla am am, ewud e qtuquss n|6uI»,t:mE1) pus sBpew«au)1 ‘uugsssssod p 1-;uaIua}a aux sauna a; page; ssu ua!|n:\s9md em mu; eauswp an) ;L: umssgmqnt mu s; u ‘amen 'sasImmd pies am y: mum Em/xn an; m ama aeuoa N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! 9 uwefls new nelmm um ‘um; ul weusv ‘mum ‘sun-4>1 wwv ‘uafiy ‘|IuJuA5 _ named 83851)]/0 Suusw Jsmn 5! "EM 5! BEING 5W PW 5Md ‘LMd ‘EMA Haul!“ "99||||Nd P!“ 911! 0; mm pemsamn [me am; psu awn mm mm menu n.) 'swsgmsAd mu eIlUoJeuMo aw mu 5% pasnaoa mu m — KMOIIH) :3 am 510:; pemdsgpun am ‘uogssessad p wemew euuo xaedsm u; [u] uamusoa 'Z§6l vaa any n} sump snmefiuzp :2 pens“ pus mqeuuno eusm unoa ul veonpma pa» pez\e:'puno;(zp¢1)sfimp paufindmw aIu|eu'nuegpsJDu> am Bummd ul pspssocns seq uounaarsmd an: new names 5! unaa gm) «pm my my aim animus ssma :2 van amp memu aauapp an; age; mg g‘: Japull ibmp snmuu-av 52 pm. sw uauw. sgqeuuso sue». sfimp pauflndmj am mu psggsm ow gw semu Buy amzsu1s!££|eueJw(gMd| ueums W. "mg qzum-mm" wlmaua aux euaw pepuzu ejsm panes (11.5) sump Deuflndml an In] sfir-In PM aw ua suuxameu Sm Dssnasla my pue ‘mun mes auno umssassod m 52M pennzna up ‘:95; van em on umuugep pus Bmuzmu em u-um samu snmaauep me puno; mqsuuao ;o sums use (u) --wane; is an uoxmz-was aI4| Kq pelmud sq ox aeouaup ma ;n sualpelfiux em ‘pasnaaz sun mans: am ems; ampd 2 Bumauqewe ;u sswmnd am 101 [sq unoo sun A: iflugpugg sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm pszwas pus puno; apsmzld ‘ma sum snmmand mu ewe) Ham Iunnom Hwy pue a4euMai|a paws»: sum painaoe mu wuam smmusmuuu mm: Ava puma: UEI mam Maw em scum pgas em nu paud saqsw Mug «em emu ‘mam Euvxu suns sen au emu wen am um! muse: one §N\d luemdlhha ma an; an 10 samefl ma Jaws -2. samuem pm am pa4e|ua sq Jonsueuu am!) now: pwes am uu may |zIms4ad nu ma pmum an M peugmpa aw -acusw Jug saawem pm ma ug ssom 01 amlsssacs slam awe: saw pm sq; ’pssn:ae sq; ;o snags xewyad Aug umua: Inn pm (mat xeq mu ma) euqewes w -12:5 em uaumuna In new us Ind) arlclevwe snsexd J. 7 r aux mo» uz-iv -sesgumm pzes auuo mom Bumn aux u\ may sauna a no Meugfiuo sum may xoq mu ma) ousem mu: M Peddem sgqeuuza .o am: e paugewun um) u\ now». (u.-1) seq ausem J, V r pauses e pelemm ‘peusdo uaxpuamn am no usum umwa perv“ mom 9-4: um (and) ma mono: awlwmw V new wu man samsm pages am an xump am um pun mp )peq aka .9... mg».-an um n1 sumsnoao mam main ‘(Md 0) flwplocay »mgmam me: am max 2 uaAIB saw no] “max; new pemssx os|E gm -mgmm was am In menu; sq 0: nasn uefia pus sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! mm) W) (M) In) (A!) (wt sasuuam mes am 0; seems paumsmun Due am, am cum usqw em mm; zuaxegup nu sq pmom petrmfi am muennssuog -WM sq um p[naM am — ma :4» eapewmq pus uonsaiaod em ox pasnrme smsweuuoc um nun any ‘aouepmap saoswd (Z) “M: anew ux um on m/pm: l¢‘l"°D awafiuorw M W00 SI-4! vlrmus ‘smu [nzl -muama p saoeua (2) Mt) asela psnusuaua Auuemaum etluagep any was a; ssi|p6eN 1"] zm nus Lu: pemeww ualum ma mm In vavuvu newness em mu m/ma so eauanma etu (2) puz (nah uuaa. sound s,anM4 m pan: :3 mm :2; pm ungmlza am owam ul pismoe aux Au ulmmsmsue an (n — srnoun; :2 we ad — om ,0 sfipaymux pun umsmsoa amou puncne am pexuu um. aauspms Bugaunuyam em -uummasmu am Aq pstmppz sauapg/«.9 am mm, M: (yum); mam yd _ om swan Buueuuuuam am aaqm mam Bum!) am ug amen esuoc pwss aux puz ssnuu mu a; same perpmsamr\ we as); emu may mm memo sq] um; uade pssnaaz am was uaweu/mos ms; MM esza swam pifllmp aua Awe am am pesnaae sq. ‘Aeum smzmag Iuz] 'ias1uwJd ml: em 01 Aex aw memo was man am am am sm sq scams ‘pasnaaz am pug MM puau; su; ‘aw Jrmqubweu gm epm:Im uamm sasuuam mas am 0| siaaae papmssmn [me am; mu suauea Jaw) MB] aw: 9/ma w Kuoumsal mu 2% n ’lfiM:l DUE 9/M! suns As-4 K-1 pa-dnooo sem emu em ‘(mat sasmm pies aqua Jew» an: m Buvpuxxnz ‘aslzfl saw u! ‘JeneMOH vase; you (E)(p)aa;;'s Jnpun ssoueuu Bupqommu Emp am 10; pemzua sq pmam seilwwd am am pa 1:-Jumn mu ‘s9'.me|swrm}a um Jepun -Ansnsn [an sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 5 am p 751': Aapun pemm sq Am 3:4 ‘esp; sq unoa u; enuepvm mo SN 14 we node: asxs; E nafivot Huwzu 10; (oat enoo Isuaa em up ZEL s Japun pameuo at: Ann: WM unu aim iguudm aauod am H ‘mm sq muse qwu unaa m Souapms mo s,gw.d put! “.4 ;u flumunc 3141 15:1 nLMa uztumuntaz um em us mam W1 ua u! nsnowam /qua Sm uepnen pwes sq] limeq uoseay mqnap yang uw sm auop: ummaa sq; l31.Ius|s\u;u1m?;o we em ueuwnoo sumo flugpug am 5‘ 1. [oz] mqwsstmyl? sound emu) spam pasrnaa an» Ad 5-quemapas euuepual ms: as pasrme am cu ua\I"E3 uses sun vemmulwne pea mm la-«sum ‘MON lzzl -uaum sq; My man sew. amnu Dumau -_usmue exawagex unmeqwmu, p esema em-us aux ulna ueflv [ya _mDm:¢a§* my mums mm ‘az/9 rsn mar r on mu-xv /9 Wwru »u HIM ewe qmnrunnu um; mm»-d asp -wma an-mu am Elwecws men my {arm me name: uumnuvp uneme :::>¢—Ewv Illnjuanmuuw uu/9: umplmlu Mu, — Muxeq mam pa3npmdaA :1 eouawew umem sq; mama: am a; pee) sen. uogmea mes eu. um. eauewes sun u| Dams K|d\ugs Sm u -1” -4 [51] Uni is Pawn Sm uoam sound was aux '£Ifiwum<=av 1095» vs) 095» WV ecuawa emu LGL s ouuansmd mum I0 K-lemurs: me am suaumwm nu cum in pafinox uz/zoom/9 rsn uoflsu sailed wanna «ms |101I"35S0Jd aux um 0» Luonnea mes 6uI.)ZSB|VGull1KLNl2 s lawn unurm almnbel am pas) sq ‘pisnms em paweue an mus ‘own 0! ampmaw Ln] Z581 vua (nltmuv 1-mm uuunvo sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! I)! -may am 59 mum umpm m pnegnau n mun aw Pfimmunmpu mu Wuu nawo wuss» an: M41 u Iunumxnbvm mums om vuv can run > rm») ws uh’ max A Izlny umpw us «Wu: wipe: sIMML:no\M;d)D9y:w21 m2 m1 suns an unuawx Au umw ml: suonunummnluumxms em wfimn auarmupuw m mm nun ueuad -Au mama some a -2» spam nmmzu my my — smnun; 5: p|sI4 leaadwo wing am ul we-uapnrem nuuunsn uaw Vameeza/\ pesnm smog psmemxa sq as saauennesuw an we uo\:l'IloeIAuo;ME1uuuemmmbm a sgwsui emu mu PIWM wanes em 10 5u!F>BaA emu an new aldxewm aux nevemlm Ieaddv :0 unoo am ‘new SN‘! Llozoz] dd "A fin-I43 Imus nu ul Its] use :13 z [nu] law 7 nu -I-M um mu mww A Joznauana ollqnd on 19191) unwed peinaoe em meummm use we yzgcxucz Am 94 pzm sg uaunea am we uaixgfi warm: as» ;u uo\lE°!|d|m aux sa pesmaz am :21 pamemxa sq ysnul uounec am y.) seauanbasunc en; 1uetaw\s ea Icu mum. umlnm am ,u ampzs. emu V [.5] (06; mm I [sure] J°'4'|9“°Jd ='lIl"d A !|'|M ==I4a "IN 01 Jam mm uaneusuaxe aux mm new ‘neuveldxe y put? pememxe em umum am new ac-uapv-s on osxs :eM sum nesnaoe aux ox new uowweo am no spam um em ,u sauapms an nus sew. emu mu fiugpuu mo ;o :1 mm m ‘Auanullsal mm Sm put-3 WM p uudm sound an) usamsq suoymnsuuoa neuauew on am mm was fiummsse ue/«e ‘mow my (:2: run z mall loo)! nus -01 A wvmnou anqng ass) puma: em uswese am 51:51 awud : pm; a; pm sq you mmx: plesamu-3 uusna .s.4.4a u. szauu». am mmefie aflmqa yzugmya e mam: mam «am Iousnme -ms aouapma aim uamfi sum.‘ 11:; 3., N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-45A-64-04/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHAMAD ARIF BIN SHAMSUL ANUAR

Dangerous drugs — Trafficking — Drugs (cannabis) in a box found on a coffee table in the living room of a house— free and unrestricted access of house by others - Whether sufficient to show possession — accused appeared shock upon arrest – police read caution under s.37A(1)(b) DDA 1952 – whether mere reading of caution sufficient - accused led police to the house where he handed over box which contained cannabis to police – whether amount to conduct under s.8 Evidence Act 1950 – inference of knowledge

22/12/2023

YA Dr Wendy Ooi Su Ghee

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=953d6750-b6b9-4e7b-9bea-7cf94bcce8f3&Inline=true

22/12/2023 11:00:27 BA-45A-64-04/2022 Kand. 58 S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N UGc9lbm2e06b6nz5S8zo8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BA—d5A—6d—lJI/2022 Kand. 58 22/12/2013 ,1vJJ-27 . mun my aunt macs uwvm uma m umwm want: my am mueons man my tr)/um unmet «ma»: uru-mwunn: umyruynyvtll '49l3Mmnx‘uia1:Iuep51lnK mu u-co mm: 955 mm: suzlu-413 mrmmm wpspmpndulm mu»-aw um: um; ma mum-s u--Sew mm: m ‘Awewa um-ma we/ea W uamrss ‘=4-=r Buearvs mm az/ /sn WM 9 on u: Danna no r fiwnx WIIwEl‘>zaz1D<1wIA0Nz ma mm mews. - smo..,o, ss pea: pssnzxxz a-4: mesa name 8-41 LN mu I0 (2)85: new" 5I|1Bfl5‘U|"|‘1 we (aw Ni.) 29:» my sfimu snmaéuaa aux ;o(2)lL)Ese sxapun icusuu uE — sgqeumm p fiz-955 m 01 ‘sfimp snmafiuen uv§u\>10meAnmM pammp ism pesrms mu M uonznnwzug NvwI)wH§u'!? m:sv1v (S159-0|-|0|I.£8=d)1'ON) avnmnnsmus ma smv avwwova NVMV1 uvuvmyvuuaa vaunv zz Mr»-rev-Va unvuaruv cmiuaa Mvsna ‘IIIHVG zlosunas Iuasan mrlvu |Il\1'|V HVHS Ia vAv1wu l99NI1 uvwvxuvw vnnvcl ‘ sw uecmmzsnmuxnzssamam -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm u| peddam sense] pfiup ul >1:m|q pammumo e peugmuoo um)u1 umwm (l Ldi Esq 3-weld ssmdxa n r 1261299 E Iewm 0: um vi-mo uiux mm.-.1 “ummd my, twom am ueuum a1aMDId|maM::ne\4|uo WM rjus/\n u pnpuzu pun swgmaxd me: am 10 wow 5|1lM|ELfl m emu eluoo em um; (um) xnq Jnnpn ummq u an gem: petrraoe em ‘amfiw aouo pemae em WA Jeqxaflm sssgwald pgei am pmelua new new sm Due owm ueguee panes mm: am am um sasymiud was am nunup am peuado puma: sup ‘w/u,ue uodn ieunuxw as » oz vmqn mam >100)/‘mane! an; -(,s gmmd pies eta) mouenes ‘em bueqns man ‘an; rsn uauar ‘g cm se mm asnnu 2 cu wee: sw we ouvu DFIUBII1 vesrwae an 'Deirmn au: 64 Luann»: pres aw.) zsm vau taxnvu: 51 Jaw" umlneo eusanbeu am new new mm: um!-A snesrme 9U3|11NJ[(§'L)ldl 5/(s)1(g|aAgy2 munq 2 pezgei oLMd'1sAsMnH ‘puma; elm nuusmmmuu mmou emu». pspnpmxi gem pwme au} 10 uwees Kpuq V [.1 puma am Uanuy |nsIum.|s mq W pzmeuaw sz psm|uap!xs1e\ am new £e|ew 3:4; mm Euusaue mum squad aux sauasmm pmnpmun am new paxpaus pslesdde mm. uem Asbaw am pwaamdda Kmvns mas) sm puz WM ‘gm. Bugsas m um um, pnwfius weaken mew ;c new 3 ‘uomwasqo aw mu! saymuu (UL) WI woqv uoflueles ‘Mar fiuewvs ‘L/L a; nanny‘ ‘Mar means an uvuzsnpuuna u=sEME>1 ‘L/L u=I=r fiuute awed hm am.) an 000 Jequmu uoueusxfiau Euueau Ezzsa Enpmadmujna anqmz no uapzuesrw us pewnpuucuobuslas '-Aer mans Om ‘ualswq uoruafiuss/\u\ |Eu§Auu:) sauomemuuv ma nun; new (an mm 10 was» an nun m um) um» wow ma uepaeus wwsdsm ‘um no": vmqe :2 W02 w :0 no [:1 mzmuwagus pus am-ug: N1!EH1aoueP!I\a uaunansma emu 12! um uoglnu ma sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm u ‘nan! Sm sue peimxm aux oz Psimsyuuupva tam uonnea pgas em yen. pegsnzs mu :1 was Sun ‘mm pwumuswemqe an "Mon mm vs ZS‘6l vuu1u)I¢)azc'i 18:2-An ummmo uomsyuywpe am no ME] p se|d!auyd am An pawns ‘en-4; [n] ems amou pm! .z9sL Msuscues ufinva mv ram) an: uslusr MIMEH 20 name ms);-may ummmauu, ;o eaemd a|flms sydnult e um! slam n ‘us; u. ‘uonneo was 914; paoxsnapun posncnz aux um; 40 pssnaas am 0; peumdxa sem uaunaa was en} mu. aauspgna an one am maul piinsae mu :2; pm sammw eauspgna an sum aem ‘wine my sun;-q esea sun u\ [22] wmdwrmu M An wow-M Avwwd M7 mm mm mm M mn pmxw-up-= we new Kuwwd :0 a; no/M96 w my Hz-noun: am sum was wawu wmau musw-uavw pew-can aw Ulllwsluwlflua cu in) Int td-amt; mm) :53 rm almu nun nu UHIH/UH wuw neaomwlwuedpnrnm MI! umumnw us but [mama Mu :. pm 5! uonm am my! me smnsuu awn Ilotlaauduq nu; ya piinnzu -.4; 01 peumydxa ..q My mum ma pa Nauanbasuua 9.4 momma: nq mu pmnu uaunoa aw 1a Auypan -mu rims no slsmzld.-1 4 M aw: "EN a: new; aw uajuundn w win yaw ‘abundant! nu: puma: sm uamza wt um aau-om sum tau ...4.m put mm ..,.,a mm mm aqua Madam M um mm In) ‘cMn¢1u] vv wau m rm 1[uozlu.4>1 -M A-mu A 4.4 m pm Ira; mo-A v.'JH°‘7‘A I-wuw ulurqzz mm psww M ‘zsaun JIPWV moved 2 a: now: or» mvdxe 0: xuawnunh-I -w no ‘/4w-mm mu aw Izzi N uecmnmzsnnwuzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! u was: fiuwxex svu we emu SEM n -pa: nemae uw new uasunoa acuawh am xq papuaxuoo sum u ‘aouqep am An pa6ua||IaI4:) A||ua\ueuaA 5!». pasmoe em in mm tn JBIW venues: sum ma mun Own: M: We . an [at] and) ma saw? I940 5“!P"9H "om va 9 s Japun unpuoo an Dsiuncme pesnaaa euuo nae pyzsalme 334; -mu m] mm 01 Ma u uumueu nus sasnuam pm am pa mum flu_w[ Bu) IA! alas; eauoa am mm; Old WI fiumaxd on we spasnonz an» we ssmwsm ms: nu» ox mop sun Deuedn assume em zsasxu-am was :44» :7! mm mum Sm pus mm pa} psrsncme am my (H! (U — [mu ampym smMd ua pnieq pasnoas em |:n|sEs p-mama ueeq Den END em :0 66va\Muu>1 :2-4| pamunvw uuunassmd mu [Lt] 'paI\md sq 0; sun naanaae am 1» mm em no eDne\M<w>1 :0 wswawe am 'Z96L vac: (pugs Aspun umxdmnsexd am no Me) mu mp umvnesmd I141 sv [ggz nflP0lI-mu)! -aousmmu Avon: sun mm; panmoxs put: unuz) suu Aq mqgssumpuu» paw sw )o5ua-/as Ms/‘ Bunqns mm ‘aa/9 rsn war '9 oN mus/a u: usunu Ip efuefl 2,».-_ pasnacm sq; KL} yueu|a|e;: am xusuumaav awkssnupe Ian ampalsu S1 was] auma sgu Au/pun omu nu Demos eu; Aq spun xuemauaxi mauam ‘uaunea munuzqe amsnnhm sq) ,9 aamammuau am a. anq [55] sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm at so: w wnv-ms am an buruavuad owu w eouwvw em ‘filfiuwumvv ‘a _pN:: _ ume\4u|ssa|un pIudea:IEaqou|seiseu|!Mecg|ad;o souepme 3141 1mm) uy pomluon A w|n:nuJd auqng nu-mum lzvl _';.w1dw<:I no /fijlmuau mm. ‘mmmaym no way» was UIW ‘um D 1-samm '3‘?°d - ABVIWM ‘mum AW ;a nauupma am we-qma mulwl 10 mums Aw »o Mum}: In: M. pus uuamw ‘wswnwtuua /o mom W: m nwdaau av Mow n ma )0 pm-«M mu: a; -z-«rem aw 1o mum sun mmw : ma no/rtmwexe —tmxI Kn um»: :1 ,9 ‘MWM mm M aapwumw I1 smpwa Wu ‘tsmoala mm MIMW Kn mmuau-2: umwfiwwlzslzilfilrs aw bu rv new mm mm lap mu m M1 -M 6-mun nu: owl mm-7 Filmy ;a nun: -mu -um two [man uwspwm Mac 5 ms In :41: say we ‘fifirdexv sq m v0u‘ai1»oa;o :, munurlw gm wow am my flwdmnlmm 2 ms nu s4-s Hun us:-ma sq -mwy M mu m xsmu mu-we M syqsqmmw A/ruweuw uzu :, W flmujmuoi ms ssmuw Iapag : Maw. smoun; 5: mm. 7* mmm ‘wsmflnnlx u. uapeugunzxs sum Aq uaxaus 51 J0 aauapwe mum Aq pexclpeaum s: u u peuoeoos an D\l'Im4s momma» em \au m Aalumw Jepwsuoa ssmsquemu mm won mu; 2 mama“ saumsu! my am an peuzme eq mucus sssssuum amwd M1 seummnsauv:-4| new wxurn L9! rm | lawn] uv vnwnwln "A Auuuwlmd auqnd w umsnen euuu sum: Lprmmmn S! was sun 1”] 'uowaounE) and um: Dunfluu 5: am: on ma venue-4 pesrme am new m aouenwa snwxa psfiue-he-4a so-map eu- ’smU_ 'uapp|uun pus mm mm: em m a|q2| Hanan am ua scum ma Mes au sum 154» am new no»:-Mums isms finunv P9N5|?(l>Md ‘we; HI [ml mm a. Jaw » puau pus ems) segue em mm] am an mu o; pssnczaz em 10] Aussaoeu cu em emu! 'e:uuaH tesnuem mes mu w mom 6uw| em ul e|qE| sewn am no snag/v.10 flfiuymfi sz.-A 1‘ ‘uappmun sum ma Mun mu am pm, cum N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm n was n|4|u1||E pip panrmce nu; ‘pins: fllusq ulmwm pile sum am p we Mfiugsudms ‘pssrlmxa mu :2. pm Sam wanna was en: mus ‘mmd 0: fimpmoe M ’m/ma on me It mu:-4 we mu-um on“ own mow bum aw H1 ewe: saw: em uwom aw: (MMHEUM we sssumevd mas em oz wiel fluwwm nu. pus gum; pa sewsm mm m meuuea sew. mam pends: (9 persncxve am ‘am ayqzqmdmw Auuamuug 5‘ .. ‘um; u‘ ‘uosew A: sum... cu §_ e1eu|sW9 man sun ‘sfimp snmefiuep Au: mm sum! is: mu-Mun: moqs mes wu sum pnnaoe aw sv ml pesnane aux ox uulmsa pies am pee: Mum mmd M1 .2; Buuuotnv pasnaaa ma :7) mm: M com we saw. uousann cu we; m -sump Run MI flnoqsilsum am us Dishes: an: al (I)u onb on vexed ow/ma new pemmns ua W [Emma Jauun; e ‘xus/us Ana .4 muss sq] nu wens sum 0 W” ;o Kuomusa) |Bm am SE ma 3 n) D|Md Aq pafipm uwdej smwd an) m peuouuem Aluo um name pm: em 10 eouevvxa aw uamsa Dams sv 19>] mm a; u pepueq pus mam bum sq) uw ewe) aeuoo nu) um» old my peume am 'sesuuaJd me: am o: /uws Due Mme uudn sasxmam pges an» n: men) fiulpgzl syn pue WM pa| pasncme mp 'snIu_ yasmmd pms em u| suzauuea sum 949:4) mu: vsudm nesnaos Btu ‘nesnaos em on uounso plea em D591 eu mus xsuu DlMd 5o Auowwaau am SEM n In] sfiulnuu suwauc; am am» um cw: ‘mm em w moss; us veonpns souamna ID MIIFIW em Hm uatneaoz vssnaas em 10 nnnuno em av flu!-«awed acuepym gm,“ ;n wamssisse pm! Aumuas uodn 'aouaH ["1 'ps:n:>ae em w yea sq; uo sfipawoux Jaw} o; aauapyxe Awe am 5; ij usqm Auepsasa ucunea put! me: welfi um p(~mm|rua§ aq 0| sw pasrma sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 51 ‘tum syn I» lnzozl Aoanoowlq :||qngABuuu9 unug uI1ea:):Aeme Aq uugssassod mo e|ru one .2. puz pesme em Aq tbrup aw p sfipnwmbg pm? Awwno ‘xmum uswzsxse cu vesmxn ens-4 mm sound H-4| :2-4| sum: 3N|l?5\)‘=s/ul! |E|p\ we Buumem mg Jo/Due sgsflauz mumasug Eu: ‘sruu nu -puma: am mm; was sunmad Jaw) mm as o; emiwsoce wow mm. 2 ug emu) aaupa e no pe:)E|d sum am u. who; may slqeuuea aux ‘aim sun u; '1aAaMnH my pasnm em Ru \uoM finned xx mad: am m 10 pasmce sq] m Apuq am am: paddias s a pasnncz us ,a umssemu paausmu 1:26:19 say u\ puno. mm samp paufindml aux M ‘aausuuw nu -em Mane pm? um m Messeoau mu 5! aausp\AeuAudAebI.m)El4IP8Ium9 [5,] musmnxn su pus mg ‘mg no punoj wu elem pasnaoe am ;a VNQ pus suzymsnuu aux ‘em uoqeumxe mm auunp pnajfila WM ‘we; m M puz mg no sxuudlefiugewuunsnp m ps>¢L7n\AaAo peq ueowo fiuuefiusawl aux] |LMa sn Jewew us-4| Jo; Ltd tum; uene we ma mm; paw sm auydjaflug ya wuapgna nu ‘aseo sun u| waxeunuown [gy] ma pemueu pEI4 uunn s/uosnsd ;a mumu am uwmzusasa In mass 0%]: Wm 91., mm, (Ana u) pew: sauumesug Ana ,9 acuapme N» ‘we; Ul vafisuv we DLlV\d 0| ma we own Memo! um vesmae em 1s|41aqmA;uaI« 0| ss 05 ‘aim: mu m iuumsgsse 12915 ,o ueaq emu p|noM um um; (Ana 1.; pang] imudjafiuy Ans p aauapgna am ‘no swam up] we we szuumsfiulj sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! 91 . pm-mv no mum: pawn M a: smamu; Imw nauulnultllllmwmdam mm psnpmulncnwsvfitawiltmaa ummp oq I/qsuaruw we w/um saunas»: mo mm mm :1 Alma mum [gm dplifpms r mumw mums ul!rIm441 fluuynatrjaadrivjnuvmg umym ow mu dams nn Innmhou-ouw man; A am mo in av snu '. <61 9596 IE 5II!IM1I\0; WI Pewnb Ififidfivw WW2) SW SIBMM £9 r1III Z lcnozl low 7 l"4OM°)1l°°1 w man man sexdmuud sun In Dawns [ssl meal Bums: sgu pus mm Aq punog :5». am ‘Mpuoosi pus pesnoae em Au mum ea ma pepueq sw om -mm; pie) sauna aw um um»: Mqeuasem an seaumewl um ‘/musnbasuog) arses mu pa saaumsm _ em pus mapym em ,n 1931 am mm In m o; wees um seon Dasnaae e-um lilflflugd am no aw-d 10 eouawe eta ivuu unoo mu ‘seuupuu Dlfivs/vane aux uo 935:}; [951 9523 umlnassmd aqua anuzuzu as" u! deb 9 ye‘ aauenyxe \1Nc| 10/pus luudmbug ma ,0 aauesqe em ‘uans w [as] .:zamPm~=1m1MIumM swdnmgwmvm-Ursaemtax-srnm-anmnuvnwzuvumvu .u. Kq ,,.,,,..,., man an yzu W -2: mm mm «mm nwwuv ruumsauumzdmsno-menmod-un=wAuawauaaauemrou mm a mum W4 no xwawn Amp -vr xaa/paw um: um my p-v mu-was amxeunowaa-mam onsetaq sulntneutrov -Aeuvmam )1 ‘won um um W! ;I mm-mu um-1235-Iu 2-2; PM m, mama ,a sand rem ; was was or -am ow m away -:4: Dwaptsuaa who man was ..m,,, cm ,1 =50!!! palusq nu: ma aapsm wane; as ms-4 umo Imps: em mew Lsv rm w [wnzl J°I"="!"-“A =-Hand A "A Bum ulna u| uaes ea he: snsfleua xuumefiuu ;o nulruodnu sq; [:51 N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm a mu sanp pm; .1 an un muuem pie: em fluvneq us Eiuymue uusled mm In Duper: Kq ‘eruu page: sun smaq emu) saw was am no rm ma Bum mm fimapvxe on nus IIM emu ‘souenma mm am New :2-4: Iusmom E M; aunmss us/\3 Lz0Z'Ll'Zu -as umuswnn u; Kep sq; in: sssuuwd was aw Ewes: Due fiuunum um [um (I!) am slam pasnace sq; mu; paanppa aauapym Du sm emu (1) — mu :02; M ;o mam u| eouvuauun vsaunn m an: suuusenb awn) o; memiue aIu_ [09] Lunuujaya [mam new no mes) bunseue sm Due DLM-1 K: Dans: saw u mam ‘N5 xenon was am no ma SBM flue: MOH Lana!» Hams was am an name on: as». UWM (H) ;a|‘l¥I ac-Juan pm: aux uo ma psaanu am we suy gem am up — ems amexem suoutallb uuwano; sub ‘aazgd 11L7cI)|E1u 51:49/«E ;u uyeuo amp MOM m [.91 (m) Azp awe: ma um as . moqe )9 Ines) mu pus: mm Aq sasuuam am am 0) wfinmq slam pesnaol em ‘Jiuemmu um no gum, sum Euuauxmuaug fiumxou mum um 00': @ pzuzu go no mflumes ‘Mar Bueqns W ‘H ue|Er ‘Mar Eiuzqng dafl ueuxsnpuued ueseMz)1 ‘W uemr male panama sum pasmne eu) mu; we. pivldsgpun ue usge S: H [us] new: M14! 2‘ Zld — uLd #2 sfips\Mou>1 we -wlrsemd em I» swarm: em mauuw mu >1-Au sun ‘was peumwnp: muses: up 99593 [As] weal Eulmm sm Due ox/ma Aq puno) sem sxqauueo paufindlm aw Deumuoa ucmm. om aw pmdrrpe sq pymus pasnm am ox auqemm ls-am aaumsm sq. mans ex; [:91 sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm -amen: puma, sfirup en] ,a nmssassau m stun sasuumd pges an) Jam [manna awmmaa pus ssaaoa sen emgexmu pasnmz em ‘saqmmd was an. :2. Ken en; nu peinaoa an, ems mnx Dammqns one naunoesmd an; my ‘am But: mm ‘and 5c asuw am wu ax pesnoos am mu. :4 ma pus "Mn ;o sonepwa a|4l mm; unnmp aanaxnn. an. ‘spmm muw n| am: )2 ml: s. ad pne um ‘um yo law» en» 64: IN! 5‘ umwui Imam mm-M mu [ts] sasunexo me: am In pnunaq uay mam swan asmu -Amnanbssnug ‘s md pges am 31:29] [am new was mac » saeq :msE|d ‘syemsd ‘saxoq ‘sfiaq Jyau) yam Buuq .7. name; Anerucre (usru-an was an! ox Nswe emu aw snowed asoul 91) yanm em men» SEm\|§V|G1S||ll'IlJ exam emu: new [Md ya aenepma am -um am] in SI aanapp am An 0 H W Jaunnu am] am uz um|ua|uua mu my naunaeawd ed! M hennnaxs £4 mu pue pannauenann um 59». MM Kq aonepws mu yew pawn sq m 51 .1 well was en: saayw 0| mg amen Anemia am in mumo emu en; Jeuzaqm uuguaa .7. emaun szm sqsu-rm PSUBIGD aw uum muss new mum ‘me; u: zssne me: an: mus mm snap (5; sum ilagmmd me: any ua suanfibwsenug um paum Mun (mama fiuI)efl!|ssAu;) MM ‘sapgsag m) w -1 or v 03 m :1 no r nssmsq Kumnoweo 'umxsenI7 us Aw am no sesfluejd was an» m mace peu can sue an vem eanema on ssm mstu I sesuuald pm: emu. mama ,a Essen: pspmsslun pne as» am so M31/\ nu and m dlumaumo au» as pesnm aux xnu N LlGcflbvnZsflEMnz5SlmBw Nuns smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm n ‘luv Udmnlrpl urn uu .4»: mm; mm. yup ..«.. 'MwnAcqu mm mm wan Mu: mm m: ‘mu-I Buuu mm-z to .r ‘m...ue.ne«ea»a ms nu»: WM usmua r lawn! w nmunl mm vuuuv uumnvutia murx am my u zu mmnqes mam am 5 (sum w new ug uoweuuum nuunv scuspl/E ya saIuN sum L9 and en) new Anew mu pmca 9»: 512 a: mop pebl sun, ems Anew» mu sew eu van: Dewjsap pus uvsww vauauoaman mu ‘maven iesuum mes a-mu -now Bum: em m esnmz em W». pauliuc psu 5/W5 wousenb ug wapmu} em emyeq mfigu sq] no '9/ma an Isunpmae mu; pswmqns asp! uaunoama em us] wan: wuum ewuam 5- am! sun uo uunmssmd mu Aq pwsgaj |uaIun5AE em ipuuunon suu ‘mfiuwpmaw Ins] peuugusmanoqe suwea (9) mo, awn pEa|suI seamen was am an same anal: uaul Wlum suwea mom ‘ass: am ;; a:aM uoo ‘Nnooce nun, wag eq 01 ye/\ ecu pemuanp swag xax euuo . and am ‘suIDun¥ sum W see;-um was no nu W 9 Wm ea: Asun Sums and — ma w umsmsod -I4 sq Kllenba we Plum we we MM ‘gmd ‘pesnaaa am mo» uede |EI4| Mann] ammaul punom n Isa! waueqz pm, sum‘ p uoyssaasad ug sq sum ‘sasuuexd ml: sq: Jaw mum amdnuoo ssu ssmmajd was am a. £9)‘ sq. spwu ;a».am4M um uaelu anowaup mnum n -umsswqns wognaesma H41 mg fimuoseea ;n sun am no pages [pg] N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm pmm mu Aq ad — mg 50 umssessod qsuuezsa 0| Jame u| uounaesma exam pmwd sq mun pasnaoa mu on em Sega: pg“ am JE|rVflfl.|Ed w seamen ms: N! 10 same: MAIKHNX9 emu IZLI ‘wow sum an m awe: eauoa aux no Dune; sfimp am to umesassma amsmcmi u! sq :2» names em pun in eyes sq mu mnam u uamrueu m mom a-mu sq) pus wsgmsm pgzs mg a. ssame papuusanln pue am; pan ow mum mam menu ‘pssnoae sq) umuauz New sages u] [m pefiuogeq u mm c. MDLIX ma Jeluslm an amp: u uses emu As-4; Asuxewa uounaaswd am /Iq pm: mu ma w-«mus wu ue em aw one um ‘9/«M ‘lune Au! in [nu mom |Suw| em on we’-velpe psaem em Malum ;uamamne um: am an o; tatymam was an on mm nu ‘LZOZ wzo on mun mp am-4| av aw van) ceumea we 5/ma Izaz us-mum” Auze m LZDZ Jeqopg m maul IIAHM nu yam Klwqgssod : um um am. um. pus sasuumd was an: Dalsma 15:: ea new -mun s-M eu zeuv LM:U0 Auoumasx am am u ‘axazeul unmpne u: [an] 'sas1ma1d mes am In Inn men mm pesnaoe aux saw as filuo ‘grow an fiulmuaua ‘smu Lzuz 0| m un paauemuma mane. am mew (mun) wwesmv Aausuel spgn efley‘ Buueysd ‘mnguwmcpuoo eu¢lB)4 PBS Wound |E IUSMIUEGE ua paws; pm; pasnaae em mm Fwdswpun 5; N name An: 14 [.39] 1136951: Erllumui) vuelxwawuoa "Mflunw 'zrflW’I9PtJ Mn‘ r me: new ma ede mg mp mmn/my Juan; 5 N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 2 on new mmw emu: aw mu ssauou-um mam Y!M1!'1fiNH|ls1VI|"WV ma M42: newweunw 40 pm! I9/ma) zwzv wnv-av um um: uewumunw Amen ‘suns (z) om mu |l|!M mow Haunw uounaaaom e 5:: vanes 08]! sm (WM) W uugq usppaj semen puas eu; M: Jeumo an; [5] Ed uqupq se pewem pue pmapua; oele sum uodm mmwuav ass» vac: suuoz Siepun amp smnefiuep s m I40HW*lQEuuEa [p sulmfl z 955 sq m mam puno1sus‘Jm4 omapuiu semp euuc sgsfiyzmz Imdn mu. pawsm 9/md was #1 sgsqau: JO) exer Euumed ‘wauluadeq Mmweua M In 19/war ueueus nw nun: new-2N mnua wamsuo 9 01 ma PSDUEH m€'MlZLd)Pi1!'5 sfimp u-uar-mm em ‘LZOZ wen no In] [11-U94] FWD) azam yd — ow azaum iaigmmd piss any n} mL7p2m| am W sudmfiauwd 31001 sq: mew sesuusnd pvt-:5 eu. 0| mm omu MUM awe HM-1‘:moq mm ® moan so no [(s-mud] Ll/Md A-I smou mm ® want so Im new» a-M zm we we hm ‘(9*|}Ld #7 S|4¢BJ5°l°l|d [LI (ma) sax Bums swim News Emma en-A Nrwu uuuz © lZOZ u 20 no H mm mzpes psfis mm euam qewexg mlaadsm mama auuesuswg am a) van»-eu mm mm sweu mu (1 M) mm in vefinm ism LZ/EEODW/B rsn aw Medan eanod v vwsrme em um Jauvafim u-mums sowed em E-leans sun at wfinmq new mam nszxas sueu em luv (and) uspe/as Ieleuss Buuog spin penadam aw pazges sum! am w an ucuees V my ‘film acuod em Ll! (“Md Aq pane: up man: Kl)‘ J33 mu kuw Jeu|slSL7| 193 ‘NJ, Zid PU! Hd ‘Old DSZVSS new DDMA ’P""°D “M 5‘-‘|l5“!“‘!15“| I-me Euyuwu mew sesuumd mes am no pavgnpuoa slam qcuees V [I3] 'p\e4 aux N am. em 1:: sesuusm me: am u| ems am) an sem almu (yd) exqauun sq m pepedans awsmd xumedsuan sw LlGcflbvnZsflnMnz5SImBw ‘Nata sew ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! xz ‘my awes euuu KZTVBE 6 law. pea; mu 5 zapun um-issued uw scuspu mm; mm [an sm an; m perpgnmxw mq amlma fiuppmeu Inn y) psumboe 9‘! an zqm vuu etM0(E)1L)E6i: S mun flumnmmn uum uemuo “wad a JD] mnsnun wu 5! u sm4_|_ limp eI4)u|nug>1amea sq muasmeu wu pm uoqeisvaod u! s\ awn uosxed s wq smp aqua uogssesind ugeq/(mzsseaau Isnm 9395241 cum uosma a esneaoq s_ _ ; 6un13WE’I| Jo pusmqa an sq use New ‘umssaassodp xuawaga mu ya aauem eupug‘/qfiu\p1:xr>V [gu 5U|1I=ullU. puma: am Kq ad - mg m afipewnux pue umssuaofl |z'.u§Aud peup ya waulaya aux usuqem a; pine] seq uunn:-eawd am mm moment stuunn; 1. pntncne am An men sauna sq. JE|n::u.Ied m pus sasmuu was em on name oAIsn|m<H anmd m vans; sen wwmeswd wnem unoa mu m Euwug em 5 «was paumqwnpe sunrseal sq) ua mag [91,] _pMqnlwo3 auua nalsvanod m an no a-mswus u wanna max 10 um ‘SW9 mu u; u JVW paw: pus mm dumznsxo ‘puevupuoa awn umnaswd swu war mu mamad now a row ‘;,: um ‘mo! na A-W Wmvwa =~:m=~- -q you pew sbmn Dunc uoassihod acumen ynnaaa W D] 5/wrwva nq .....u mm, m Ibmp cw amen mm aw mt! uuw m Fnnurum pa wa yotnaisa-1 mm: . ‘Ma/weuvd Amy ,1 mm m u; .nnn-unnnueuszuu ‘some/vs npnnxa wnfluvvntanq. u.e»4sn»a-mo swesw MW:-In Putnam:-u ‘mm mm uowluw ml!‘-1num59I‘.Mu, . 31 pm , mag ugmlu um ulmmn; vuolnnusmd o||qn.g m (“M new Bu mar nines !Mw«92 WOW flluslam 5»-M-1 nezueumnt iv In] uonnaesma 3441 JD} 552:) nuuuemaqddns m Amp muayep au) mu e. u was am amp mm uuunoasom am ‘sdefl am alum p pus ‘uepmq sun afllmpswp ax uounaesmd am no uuequmoug sjoyuauusw u an N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! zz (Jndwrn a|En)1) saumossv-3 u). moo, uasqm 1w :|ssurv.13 a::ua;a(] Aaqmzuo KJO5VtpV\E5S1 61:15 mfiuuos mm; uemoesm mud Aznaau sup. pemauow up sum snoapug Aw .ummae:wd sawed 19 |EWWO)WE\\1 news 10 was I4 . Jsumssgmm '3 |B\::;pny‘ [33H9 ns |o Acmam "Mu 'v/0 czuz aw ma bexlu tauepep mus ea panes fiuxeq unouum pesmmup pus peugnboe Aqmeu sw pa-sums am ‘ado euup (zmg rs um nouewoooe u| 'psflAEI4:: 5! sq Ipgum w sauago am w mass; u: nesnoee am zsmafls ems; sumd a \4§1||13Jsa nu Wu-2; szu uoguvcxasmd am ‘Emu [ad pasnma am usugziie pawn; ammo am ug Buppyzll we eapewoux ‘uomassod ;o nuswpalbul /uesieoeu em emu‘! Ln papa; seq ucwnescud em mu: unoo Sm; ;o fiugpug am ea u -paanppe asuepyxe uunnaesmd sin ;n mamssssse pus uoneme/xa wnmtxew am uadn In] Ilngsnuluug 'ne>1oAu- an wu»-so 91056180) zsu vau Inn: wen-An Banana» ,4: ucpdmnsmd Mnvuzxs eta ‘uogsses-zoo Iecgsma may 10 Iueume aux 9/mm ax uannoasmd an: m mung sq; :2; am) ‘wane Auz u] (“,1 sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm . aw nun; meet Emma: Stu nus mm: in mun; um um ‘view: ‘emu oz 11 men we awe: scum em and ma <3" mm! Ion wv pssnaoe aw vet» psfiuaueuo one wuewn aux ‘am out: mu ‘sand 10 swwcwnsm mu ;o Mel/\ u. pssnczzvz am in semen mes aqua uomessua msmaxa I4SI\q|?ose on pens; sau ucnnuasmd am new peuuuuzni aenewu menu mu [Lu -saw (9) am An wv sues aI4H01E)LE 5 mp-An ummue mmmuuu am pepaecxe Aufisp -am sums 3955 cm pserme em :0 mlssassnd uv puma; syqauueo .a zunmuz ma :2 pa>qaAu§ am new van (sum: s Jspun Bu!>pweAuo uomauansem em ‘M31 w umumua /(q ‘sauan (ugey V3) osu my magma g-s Jspun unpuoo snu mm; pans,-4 aflpewoux pus pasmae am |su|E6: parmld useq “I4 uoussewod esuepma paqp ‘mm m -sump peuflnduu am y) sfipavmux pus uugasemod |ea|:(ud pau pesnm am van: veuymqni uownaasmd am -ma macaw: am so pus an) N In 1) same» pies su)cMe>1 3 news se». a-4 awwn samumd mes am :2 was an Lies): 53 um. piIM:||E 9% mm cue ‘Jeusermmp ‘dam 5 a su1aup|oqssnmq mas eu mm aadnqg @ sseugsnq auuuu us u1DeA|0AuuseM eu ‘xznzm nzuz 10 met aux uaemaq WM muse: (mm -u-nu um mu mvxau nawwew ‘pivnae em DUE QM: um puau; uzmmu V -sampe; mas sq. em a; sasgmua pm my Kq amp p|nDM spuem ssmd ‘ssslmem me: am ug mama he um pm-3 semefi uomsmd osxs em menu iv AEME sm gm‘, ewyr. 39:: am E-«nee: uv sum was: pm: 5/ma was ac (mm! mvxmz ma we-uzeo-4 'Ju mqqmeu sm oi sesmmu pges am a] Asa e was one gm -am; m gm; ma uq aumsmos pesnaae 3141 xx; pamm suuumu aim] 0; am) 10; no; -4 um; pue uweks ‘spasm sm :2. sasymand pyzs am 0) summ am paws) mam g/W3 mumem was en) )5 gm Mm 5uIAIza1‘A;aAg::adsaA no: we smz un Wlld men» on news am we 9/ma -aw ‘memou ‘am -4 was at» manna «mm mm: mm; seswmam pges sq) m ms sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm 'pa)dupe eq mm pesrme a-4: o» 8K1Emnne;eua aw ‘ssmexa in" ya unwl n n ewe ssuaxam auo usm mu. aq 9134.1; mucus ‘oiw -smm uaaa p eouspma aw uaemq unxuovplmuoa Au: 5) am. mqzaum m mamssms ua elqolxuy nnqmaq] p|naM .. -menus umlnassmfl em Aq pswmpfi eeousaym ,u fiuwmp am We uoumavimd am Kq pane: iwsseuum yo wemssesse pun uo\|an|eAa sngusod e semunuw u ‘Mans: W vouagap em noun Jews oz patnaae cu; uo "an a; Jauxmw Bulmolp mag psusuqasa ussq snau aousne an ,0 sumpeusu; mu ;; usuqmse ax Aap4o m paanppe scuepma uounocsmd em ,0 Auuqzuan pus A|\|]q\ps4a nu; ;o uouamua uuumxem e wuwun cu unoo sumo win any ‘snul m] . sum» was «um 2-2 my: umamupsuua ea nu you mine oslmw mu um um ma nu sea om war; rum: n uaw ‘aw: swmaem: am In mm» m mm. Ioatpma mu )0 uupzmyuo nu ,, Ans/mums 10 Aumema ‘Kyyuuwued pou pun mama pcztmwus eq 0; Elm mm,» 9.4 mu,wa uwurunn Iunuqxiul a no pm-z.nm nu} sum :1 ma suwmewmnww nu ow ll pm -u (94 ans Jew! men an: r13 L lunzl dd A uluow uupuusm ya am mu m unog maps; emu uo Iaap an [an we spam um seq am 5135] swim a mu) peusuei n n ualw aauajep mu Jo; um 0) ix asza ummema Eu) ;o asap an we unoo Sm) w Amp am ‘(:>:::)) 6900 empawd LWWDO em :0 mm: M szammld iv [an MI1 --41 'pe§maE aw wmefla am am, ewud e qtuquss n|6uI»,t:mE1) pus sBpew«au)1 ‘uugsssssod p 1-;uaIua}a aux sauna a; page; ssu ua!|n:\s9md em mu; eauswp an) ;L: umssgmqnt mu s; u ‘amen 'sasImmd pies am y: mum Em/xn an; m ama aeuoa N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! 9 uwefls new nelmm um ‘um; ul weusv ‘mum ‘sun-4>1 wwv ‘uafiy ‘|IuJuA5 _ named 83851)]/0 Suusw Jsmn 5! "EM 5! BEING 5W PW 5Md ‘LMd ‘EMA Haul!“ "99||||Nd P!“ 911! 0; mm pemsamn [me am; psu awn mm mm menu n.) 'swsgmsAd mu eIlUoJeuMo aw mu 5% pasnaoa mu m — KMOIIH) :3 am 510:; pemdsgpun am ‘uogssessad p wemew euuo xaedsm u; [u] uamusoa 'Z§6l vaa any n} sump snmefiuzp :2 pens“ pus mqeuuno eusm unoa ul veonpma pa» pez\e:'puno;(zp¢1)sfimp paufindmw aIu|eu'nuegpsJDu> am Bummd ul pspssocns seq uounaarsmd an: new names 5! unaa gm) «pm my my aim animus ssma :2 van amp memu aauapp an; age; mg g‘: Japull ibmp snmuu-av 52 pm. sw uauw. sgqeuuso sue». sfimp pauflndmj am mu psggsm ow gw semu Buy amzsu1s!££|eueJw(gMd| ueums W. "mg qzum-mm" wlmaua aux euaw pepuzu ejsm panes (11.5) sump Deuflndml an In] sfir-In PM aw ua suuxameu Sm Dssnasla my pue ‘mun mes auno umssassod m 52M pennzna up ‘:95; van em on umuugep pus Bmuzmu em u-um samu snmaauep me puno; mqsuuao ;o sums use (u) --wane; is an uoxmz-was aI4| Kq pelmud sq ox aeouaup ma ;n sualpelfiux em ‘pasnaaz sun mans: am ems; ampd 2 Bumauqewe ;u sswmnd am 101 [sq unoo sun A: iflugpugg sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm pszwas pus puno; apsmzld ‘ma sum snmmand mu ewe) Ham Iunnom Hwy pue a4euMai|a paws»: sum painaoe mu wuam smmusmuuu mm: Ava puma: UEI mam Maw em scum pgas em nu paud saqsw Mug «em emu ‘mam Euvxu suns sen au emu wen am um! muse: one §N\d luemdlhha ma an; an 10 samefl ma Jaws -2. samuem pm am pa4e|ua sq Jonsueuu am!) now: pwes am uu may |zIms4ad nu ma pmum an M peugmpa aw -acusw Jug saawem pm ma ug ssom 01 amlsssacs slam awe: saw pm sq; ’pssn:ae sq; ;o snags xewyad Aug umua: Inn pm (mat xeq mu ma) euqewes w -12:5 em uaumuna In new us Ind) arlclevwe snsexd J. 7 r aux mo» uz-iv -sesgumm pzes auuo mom Bumn aux u\ may sauna a no Meugfiuo sum may xoq mu ma) ousem mu: M Peddem sgqeuuza .o am: e paugewun um) u\ now». (u.-1) seq ausem J, V r pauses e pelemm ‘peusdo uaxpuamn am no usum umwa perv“ mom 9-4: um (and) ma mono: awlwmw V new wu man samsm pages am an xump am um pun mp )peq aka .9... mg».-an um n1 sumsnoao mam main ‘(Md 0) flwplocay »mgmam me: am max 2 uaAIB saw no] “max; new pemssx os|E gm -mgmm was am In menu; sq 0: nasn uefia pus sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! mm) W) (M) In) (A!) (wt sasuuam mes am 0; seems paumsmun Due am, am cum usqw em mm; zuaxegup nu sq pmom petrmfi am muennssuog -WM sq um p[naM am — ma :4» eapewmq pus uonsaiaod em ox pasnrme smsweuuoc um nun any ‘aouepmap saoswd (Z) “M: anew ux um on m/pm: l¢‘l"°D awafiuorw M W00 SI-4! vlrmus ‘smu [nzl -muama p saoeua (2) Mt) asela psnusuaua Auuemaum etluagep any was a; ssi|p6eN 1"] zm nus Lu: pemeww ualum ma mm In vavuvu newness em mu m/ma so eauanma etu (2) puz (nah uuaa. sound s,anM4 m pan: :3 mm :2; pm ungmlza am owam ul pismoe aux Au ulmmsmsue an (n — srnoun; :2 we ad — om ,0 sfipaymux pun umsmsoa amou puncne am pexuu um. aauspms Bugaunuyam em -uummasmu am Aq pstmppz sauapg/«.9 am mm, M: (yum); mam yd _ om swan Buueuuuuam am aaqm mam Bum!) am ug amen esuoc pwss aux puz ssnuu mu a; same perpmsamr\ we as); emu may mm memo sq] um; uade pssnaaz am was uaweu/mos ms; MM esza swam pifllmp aua Awe am am pesnaae sq. ‘Aeum smzmag Iuz] 'ias1uwJd ml: em 01 Aex aw memo was man am am am sm sq scams ‘pasnaaz am pug MM puau; su; ‘aw Jrmqubweu gm epm:Im uamm sasuuam mas am 0| siaaae papmssmn [me am; mu suauea Jaw) MB] aw: 9/ma w Kuoumsal mu 2% n ’lfiM:l DUE 9/M! suns As-4 K-1 pa-dnooo sem emu em ‘(mat sasmm pies aqua Jew» an: m Buvpuxxnz ‘aslzfl saw u! ‘JeneMOH vase; you (E)(p)aa;;'s Jnpun ssoueuu Bupqommu Emp am 10; pemzua sq pmam seilwwd am am pa 1:-Jumn mu ‘s9'.me|swrm}a um Jepun -Ansnsn [an sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 5 am p 751': Aapun pemm sq Am 3:4 ‘esp; sq unoa u; enuepvm mo SN 14 we node: asxs; E nafivot Huwzu 10; (oat enoo Isuaa em up ZEL s Japun pameuo at: Ann: WM unu aim iguudm aauod am H ‘mm sq muse qwu unaa m Souapms mo s,gw.d put! “.4 ;u flumunc 3141 15:1 nLMa uztumuntaz um em us mam W1 ua u! nsnowam /qua Sm uepnen pwes sq] limeq uoseay mqnap yang uw sm auop: ummaa sq; l31.Ius|s\u;u1m?;o we em ueuwnoo sumo flugpug am 5‘ 1. [oz] mqwsstmyl? sound emu) spam pasrnaa an» Ad 5-quemapas euuepual ms: as pasrme am cu ua\I"E3 uses sun vemmulwne pea mm la-«sum ‘MON lzzl -uaum sq; My man sew. amnu Dumau -_usmue exawagex unmeqwmu, p esema em-us aux ulna ueflv [ya _mDm:¢a§* my mums mm ‘az/9 rsn mar r on mu-xv /9 Wwru »u HIM ewe qmnrunnu um; mm»-d asp -wma an-mu am Elwecws men my {arm me name: uumnuvp uneme :::>¢—Ewv Illnjuanmuuw uu/9: umplmlu Mu, — Muxeq mam pa3npmdaA :1 eouawew umem sq; mama: am a; pee) sen. uogmea mes eu. um. eauewes sun u| Dams K|d\ugs Sm u -1” -4 [51] Uni is Pawn Sm uoam sound was aux '£Ifiwum<=av 1095» vs) 095» WV ecuawa emu LGL s ouuansmd mum I0 K-lemurs: me am suaumwm nu cum in pafinox uz/zoom/9 rsn uoflsu sailed wanna «ms |101I"35S0Jd aux um 0» Luonnea mes 6uI.)ZSB|VGull1KLNl2 s lawn unurm almnbel am pas) sq ‘pisnms em paweue an mus ‘own 0! ampmaw Ln] Z581 vua (nltmuv 1-mm uuunvo sw uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! I)! -may am 59 mum umpm m pnegnau n mun aw Pfimmunmpu mu Wuu nawo wuss» an: M41 u Iunumxnbvm mums om vuv can run > rm») ws uh’ max A Izlny umpw us «Wu: wipe: sIMML:no\M;d)D9y:w21 m2 m1 suns an unuawx Au umw ml: suonunummnluumxms em wfimn auarmupuw m mm nun ueuad -Au mama some a -2» spam nmmzu my my — smnun; 5: p|sI4 leaadwo wing am ul we-uapnrem nuuunsn uaw Vameeza/\ pesnm smog psmemxa sq as saauennesuw an we uo\:l'IloeIAuo;ME1uuuemmmbm a sgwsui emu mu PIWM wanes em 10 5u!F>BaA emu an new aldxewm aux nevemlm Ieaddv :0 unoo am ‘new SN‘! Llozoz] dd "A fin-I43 Imus nu ul Its] use :13 z [nu] law 7 nu -I-M um mu mww A Joznauana ollqnd on 19191) unwed peinaoe em meummm use we yzgcxucz Am 94 pzm sg uaunea am we uaixgfi warm: as» ;u uo\lE°!|d|m aux sa pesmaz am :21 pamemxa sq ysnul uounec am y.) seauanbasunc en; 1uetaw\s ea Icu mum. umlnm am ,u ampzs. emu V [.5] (06; mm I [sure] J°'4'|9“°Jd ='lIl"d A !|'|M ==I4a "IN 01 Jam mm uaneusuaxe aux mm new ‘neuveldxe y put? pememxe em umum am new ac-uapv-s on osxs :eM sum nesnaoe aux ox new uowweo am no spam um em ,u sauapms an nus sew. emu mu fiugpuu mo ;o :1 mm m ‘Auanullsal mm Sm put-3 WM p uudm sound an) usamsq suoymnsuuoa neuauew on am mm was fiummsse ue/«e ‘mow my (:2: run z mall loo)! nus -01 A wvmnou anqng ass) puma: em uswese am 51:51 awud : pm; a; pm sq you mmx: plesamu-3 uusna .s.4.4a u. szauu». am mmefie aflmqa yzugmya e mam: mam «am Iousnme -ms aouapma aim uamfi sum.‘ 11:; 3., N uecmnmzsnnncnzssamsw um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-02(NCC)(W)-1802-10/2019

PERAYU Stone Master Corporation Berhad RESPONDEN 1. ) Dato Koh Mui Tee 2. ) Datuk Lee Hwa Cheng 3. ) Datin Chan Chui Mei 4. ) STARFIELD CAPITAL SDN BHD

Civil Appeal - Setting aside a consent judgment - Section 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Evidence Act 1950 - Whether the Appellant had successfully proven that the consent judgment was obtained through fraud - Appeal dismissed

21/12/2023

YA Dato' Hashim Bin HamzahKorumYA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruYA Datuk See Mee ChunYA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=57c12c69-f5d2-49a3-8323-5ff8a7bdad00&Inline=true

21/12/2023 15:36:27 W-02(NCC)(W)-1802-10/2019 Kand. 199 S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal H—o2 mac) (H) —1au2—1u/2019 Kand. 39 2,/12/2nu ,» 7.9 ;, IN VHE COURT or APPEAL or MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) ILAPPEALN mm mm Mann 1nI2o1n BETWEEN STONE MASTER CORPORATION EERHAD (No. SYARIKAT: 498839-X) AFPELLANY AND 1. DATO KOH Mul TEE (NO. KP: 550705-1n-6141) 2. DATUK LEE MWA CHENG (NO. KP: 610701-fll-B223) 3. mm cum cuur MEI (N0. KP: 7n1o31-105415) 4. STARFIELD CAPITAL sun BHD (No. SVARIKAT: 911026-D) RESPDNDENTS [\n The Mallerof cwn sum No: WA-ZZNCC-232AD6I2D17 m the Hwgh com or Malaya m Kuala Lumpur Belween 1 5w asxxvuL1onmum4v7zuAA mm Sum INNDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm STONE MASTER CORPORATION BERHAD (No SVARIKATAQHBS9-X) ..PLAlNTIFF AND 1 one KOH MUI TEE mo. KP: saums-10-aw) 2. DATUK LEE HWA CHENG (NO KP.e1u1o1Ja14a223) 3 DATIN CHAN CHUI MEI (N0. KP: 701031-mans) <1. STARHELD CAPITAL SDN BHD (N0 SVARIKAT: 971026-D) DEFENDANTS comm RAVINTHRAN AIL PARAMAGURU, JCA SEE MEE CHUN, JCA HASHIM HAMIAH, JCA GROUNDS or JUDGMEN1 2 5w >su?WL1unmuHMv72IAA mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm Tln Lnw on sminu Asian u cnnunt Judgmam or omr [331 in Ihe nresem case, me parainouni issue beiore me learned HCJ is wnexnaime Consent Judgment snieied bsiween insAppeiiani and he 4" Respondent ought to be set aside [:1] Fiisi and iuiemdsi, a cnnsenl iudginem di dimer is regarded in iaw as a conlracl, supeiadded witn lhe court's coinmaind. [:5] in nn Geek Lln v. u KIlllI[1DU4]3 MLJ 4a5;[2on41z cu wt, Mchd Nuumnmad FCJ [as he then was) speaking lor the Federal cmm slated lhal ~s. (1; On the iim ISSUE, which is related in qilsshon (1), . nonunt Iuddmcnr or war Is not ma as a contact. Ind Jllblwr to th- incidrmt of: contract, bvcausn mm is supwlddvd mo commlnd or me com, and its low: and disc: dorivas from the contract bmmn me pmiu Iudlny In, or uvldlncud by, or Incurporllod in, ma conslrvlludqmonl oi order. A cons-nr mu must no ylven us Iullcuntrictual gum, av-n rm mlltu In in inmvosumvy my in "II mien (sea para 390 @ p 238, Haibwys Law: a! Engisnd, Am edn mi .77; ws gamei inm mid Dlabaslfifln Mi! {1} me agmemen! on me ieinis reached beiwesn me parties at me inieiiocurory slage oven action is a contract nsxmn the parties and (i; (he canssm fuiigmsnt or did.» aiisind our :7! lhsf contract is arm a contract between (ha Dame: sxcsm uiame Vstreus superadded wim me commalidoflhs man‘ in snm, Ihelfi aid Ma mnmms, ans, helm: rhl mun makes iris oidsi and two, any 01: wderr: made Arie: we older 15 made ms nu: contract mslges into the second oorilvatt That being me cass, slim‘ dun. D7119! being made, NW flrst coniracr will have to be sapawrely considered on in binding ellec.’ 1: sin :§xEWL1unmDHMv72IAA 'NnI2 s.ii.i Ilnlflhlv M“ be .5... M mm n. niimruiily MIN; m.n.n vn AFVLING WM! bmsdon Incidents Ms carmacr. This slltlmamis relevant in ma plesunt apnea/Irr which ma firatmnlracfts rnvomad as no order had been made ny the cowl. The Iealned ma/[W99 show/A1 have pmceedad in ma firs!‘ mass In considur so/sfy on ma bimifng arm of ma firs! mnlmct warram mgsrd as In wnamer ornor me now! had made my ordstmamc. For me purpose, she shnuldnave rnomu mm ms farttslssdfng to ma agmemen! and sxammsd me lads and men uaaraea on lls ornamg em: band on ma mcmrus ol a contract. And rr she considers mar ma firs! mrmacl was me pames than we pany Laugh! to he anawea la rune mm It mruo make an arm m rsmrs accormng m ma merrrs oflhs Iscts as uapoaar: in ma ulfidavft or Mr G Proctor. Instead, by necessary /nu:/{cut/on, me wvcseaad to eorrsrurr on (M wurrng sflncl ol ms nrsr corrrracr sfmulransous/y wrm the second contact when she named mar no comm Order was rum at an on me am contract In snm, hsrdscrsion was armpry based on ma lack ararr alder made by ma mm In raagam or me rm contract. mm due respect we had Isr!-id lo axarcrsa her msuarrorr judtdausly. ~ (-mphuu wand) [39] W10! its status as a judgment or war of the court, a cunsam judgmsntoramermnnct be vaned or set aside except under me sup rule Mar :1 has been reguhariy oblamed, emerea, or drawn up. [an] Hawevsr. ma oanssnuudgmenl words: may be impeached Ihmugh a fresh aclmn if .1 was obtained by fraud or where vunner ewdence coma nol pessibly have been adduced at me original hearing :2 am asrxWL1onrr.um4n71IAA -ma saw n-nhnrwm be used w mm In: nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm VI] anum WM fl [M] \n Hock Hui Bank and v Sahari bln Murld [1951] a ML: 14:: 1195011 LNS 92,01: Federm Counlhraugh Chang Mm Tat FJ (as he man was) he\d' 'CIur1y mu Dam! in: no pawl! until! my uppumaon In mu um- Action to ma: vary or :11 um. ljudymlnl requlafly mama um I! nu bun wntond at an oniar arm 1: Is dawn up, oxcopr under an sllp mic m o 2:; r, 11 Rules allhs supmna Cour! 195710. 20: n Ru/es ollhu Hrgh Cnufl 19:30 ; so 15: as rs memry ru wired mom in sxpnsssmg ms fnlsnlmn oflhe com Ra s: Nazarrw Ca. 12 on D as, Ksrsey v sauna M12] 2 KB 452 Hsssran u Junes 1191412 KB 421‘ unless I: m s/udgmen! by delaul! or made m ms absenca ofa parry.-3! we may or heanng But udymont or order has bun only/nod by Iluud of mm. iumm nvldnnca which could not pol-sibly haw bum Adducnd 1: ms orig/ml n-mug I. forthcoming, a Irish acuan wum. to impeach the angina: ]m1yrnIM‘ Hlp Foong Hang v News 5 Cu. [1P1B]AC say and Jonosao v. B9ani[V93!7]AC 299. me neamg ollne amen wfllm a plopsr case be expedited‘ smnn v Panza! 55 SJ 5127 " (emphasis zddod) [42] smca me consent juagmem or order 15 also an order ov me cum to carry out me Lxwnflacl uewveen Ihe pames, i( can also be se| sskie an me same grounds mat a I:onIra::| can he set asms. [43] In Khzw Poh Chhuan v, Mg Galk P-ng a. up wan chuan a. Ors. uses] 2 cu «as, me supreme com speakmg |hmugh Peh Swee cm" FCJ (as he men was)‘ new as Ialluws‘ 1: 5w asu?WL1unn.nm4p71IAA -ma Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm ua nvwmuly mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm "A conunt ordcr is In ordul of (III com carrying out an aynlmtnt bafwnn lln plrflls I! used to be mougrii ai ans lime me: only 5 fimund aflraud cam cause a mnservl order ra as as! was iris now wellserl/sd mat a cerium om: om nu mum an «in mm wounds 1.: than on which M lnrlvmunkmlybv III is again the Nilddslsfiald Banking Co supra “ see s.g (umphuls mm) [44] Again, in Eldladdln mu Mohd Mlhldln EAnor V Arab Malaysian Flmnm Bhd [mu 1 ML: 39:; [1:99] 2 cu 15. Peri Swee Chin FCJ (as he then was) in deiivering me iuagniein or me Federal noun, held as follows “rn. grounds rufunnd to for sitting uldo u comm! am: or - judglmcnl by conunl In ymlmds which buslnllly mm to canslnsui ad idem or me free consent or parties to . blndiny -gmnmiz or convict /t is elomervlary that im 75 proved that there are grounds wmn vieieie men free consent, the agloemeril is noi binding. Now: Donsenlordevuls/udgemenlby conssrvris undoubtedly based on an agreement ol bolh parties where conssm to me sgfeemem‘ mus! W snuuii: rim bssn iiss in the firs! place inns aglsemenl upon wnicii a consent onisrorludgernenl by ED113671! is based, i's vmatsd by any ground recognized in equity as viliatfrlg mu inee consent, Mn 5: {ram mlslske. Iota! (at/um nl wlvsidsraticn, (see Nuddssfie/d Banking Ca V Henry Lisle! [1995] 2 cn 273 and ma ems: med mmin), zimi such n pcrhctad consunl ordorodudganlcnl by cans-ntcouldba sotasldo :4 N a§xEWL1onmD\1!4D72IAA Nata s.ii.i Ilnlflhlv M“ be used M mm n. niiin.ii-y MIN; dun-mm VII nF\LING WM! E ln . [rash .sc1lon flied hr the pltrpou Grounds wnlon would vmm luch lm conunl would also Include misnllnuntl ‘on, amnion. Ind unduo Influunca nnd otnlrymunds ln nqnlzy ~ (nmphuls Iddud) 1451 Ong c.l (Malaya) (as he man was) m dahvenng me Judgment cl |he Federal Cou«1lnTong Ln Hwa &Anorv. c Fah y. Chln Ah Kwl[I971] 2 MLJ 75;[1l11]1 LNS 14: had «ms \o say: Ah Kwi and Tang Chung "Arm - ludymont by consent nu boon name and mu-d, it cannot lflorvnrds has varied on ma gmuna oi lnlsuk oxupr lol muons sulrlcl-nl to u! was an -gr-omunl (saw/lltomsy—GsnarxaI y. romlrns ) (1577—5[ 7 on n alas The general mlc ls um um - ludwmonr lm burl passod and unloml, mm wnnn it lus lmn tnkln by consnnl nna undcr 5 lnlsralm, ms Caufl cannot 5.: ll ulttt othuvllu mun ln a (rush aczlan bmuyhr for ma purnosn unless (.5; mm nas been a clerical mistake or an error nrtslny rmln .n accldnnul! slip or omlnlon, or (£7) zneluvymenl as drawn up does not can-my sm. mm ll». calm zcnlally docldod .n.1 Intondod Ia docfdc, ln may ol wlncn cases the annllcmon may be made by mollun rn me anllarv lsns Amswunh V VI/lIdIng)[1596]1 on 573 The same rule muslapply, a lonlon, where» m names have smsredlntu an agvsemervl ln pmsuanoe nl the terms 2/ senlemenl embodied m the consent orusr ~ (emphasis addld) [46] The Arlbellanl, in lha present case, pleaded ms: (he Cansenl Judgment was lrauaulenuy ablamed and augm to be set asme. :5 5w >§xEWL1unmDHMv72IAA -ms Sum ..n... M“ be used M mm n. mwwnyulv Mm; mm. VII mum pm [47] with these tnts pnncipies or law in mind. we ounsidu me issues naised by an parties to this appeal. First issue: wimti-r The Findings oi nu High Coun In The sc suit can E: Usld As Evldunea to Prove That Thu Rnpondinu Had conspired To nolruud Thu Appellant [40] Belore us, the Appeilam submillad Ilia! (he Consent Judgment was lainlsd witn iiiegaiity ano riaua, as evidenced by ins findings oi the Hign Cmm in the SC Suil. The Appeilarlli throughout its submiasion, had relied heavily on me findings onne i-iign com in tne sc Sun la pmve its ciaini aigainsi me Resuoridenis. [cu] Aoooming to tne Appalianl. iiie findings oi ins High Conn in the sc suit had stitmn tnai me 3*’ Respunaeni had Oommilled various oieeoiies unaerine CMSA 2007, namely lhal the ct“ Respondent: was in a position olpawerand wnlrol IM me Appeiiani, and she was insiniinentai in ii)gening tns Appensnito lake up ine Rmia iniuion ioen imin ins 4* Rasporidem ano (iii proposing and getting the Appellant lo enter into tne agency agreements witti the 23 PRO mmpanies. was instrumental in tne ionmaiion oi the 23 PRC subsidiary companies has appointed puppet directors ior me 23 PRC subsidiary companies sa ttiai stie could have fun control over these cumbariifii 15 sin b§xEWL1oflmDi1!4p72lAA -we s.ii.i ...i..i whi be in... M mm no niiii.ii-i MVM5 m.i.ii via AFVLING Wm! .1, was the sole signatory ot the 2: pm: Substdtary Companies’ bunk aocounts wtlhout the knowteage 01 me Aooettanre board of atreexere e. had ooncucled and taonoated the alleged lelleroiaulhorisalton by lhe 23 PRC Subsidiary Comparttss gtving harms mandate to set up those eompames; and 6 had kapnhe AppaHan|'s hoard ofdtreclurs tn tne darkabcut ner acl es with the 2:5 PRC companies and the 23 23 PRO Subs ery companies and iaiteu to atactose her oontttm et Interest and retated perry (ransacunns. [so] Funnermoret me Aopenant auonmteu mat me decisimt was upheld on meat to the Court oiADpeaI, and me am Respondent had lattsd la ootain leave to aaoeat to tne reaerer Court. [511 Firstly‘ we hold that me retevency and admissibtlity of judgmems, orders‘ or decrees as evidenae tn any met ere subtect to tne hmtlsd dmumstances set out under 990110!!! 40 I0 43 0' [ha Evtdsnua Ac(195U (“EA 1950"). [52] For ease et reference, sections 40 to 4:4 et tne EA 1950 are set out betow. [531 section an otme EA195o reads: “Secfion 447. Fmvrous/udgmertts ratevanr to Dal .s second son or mat :7 SW asu?WLtenrnuttMn71tAA None Sum ...na.. MU be used m mm o. nttmruflly sun; dun-mm VI] was Wm! rm Ixmoncv or any ludgmonv, mdnr or decise which by law pnvinls any court (rum tlklny cagnlnnu an sulrorholdmg a mar la a Mayan: vac: wnan ma woman 1: whom» an court augm In mm aognixanaa of the sun or to hold ma tnal - mnpnaans addcd} [54] Semen 4| ullhe EA 1950 slates that -sacnan 41 Relevancy olcsrmnjudgments m pwbits, itc., /ulrsdtclron (1) A nna: ynagananx. am: or down on com, In ma ax-min ol pmbltt, mllrimom , Idminlry :1! bankruptcy jurisdlcllan, wman confers upon ar taku away from any pmon any regal cnmn-r, at wmcn dodaras any Dirsun to be enmtsd In any sum character, or m bs erml/ed in any aaaamc thing, ml as agarns! any apes/nau paraon but am/are/y "a mllvlnr wnan ma uistumv 0/zny such leyzl cnmcm or ma um ofnny such plrsan In any such thing I: nlnvnm (2; Sucmudgmenl, order or mm .s canuuam Moo!- (a) that any lugal character man It aanrm acuusd at ms lime wnan ma/'ufi9"Venf. older or dmaa came into oaeralfan, 0») that any /sgal chalactsr to man u mlms any such person to as arm!/ed acduad to marparson at ma ma when ma /udgmsm, older or 1190732 declares n to have accrued to Ma! person, (0) me! any /aga/ character wen u take: away from any such person mm at ma mna /mm wmch ma /udgmsnt, order at decree oeelarsd mar n had csassd or should cease, and 15 N .s.muann.umam-aa ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. ann.u-y mm; dun-mm vn anum wrm [55] [56] (a) mm anymmg to whrclv rl docllrss any person to be so srml/Id was me prunerry of that person at Ihe nme hum wen we judamartl, under or decree oeclsm man It nan cson or showd be his property " (amphuls addod) sacmon 42 onne EA 1950 reads “Semen 42. Relswlvcy and slice! onuugmenrs, war: or deems: other man [Hose menvonea In mm" 41 Judgments, omsrs arduaeu me: than moss monl/cued m sswon 4v ave rs/evsm inhty mm to mum on public nalun I-Ilvant to the Inquiry, am such juagnvents‘ olden or devees are not concluxlvr proofoi that which my stats. ' (ampvusls added) secuun 43 oi the EA slates that: "secuon 43. ./uagmsnu. an, other than lhose mamruned m secmms 4a to 42 when Islevanr. ./udgmsnrs, mm m declues new man Mass mumonodln actions I0, 41 um 42 m Imll m unless an um-nu alsucn /‘udymnnl, mu or cum I: . Inc: In Issm ov 1: nlmnr -mm some other prvvixiun of Mix Act. “ :9 sw .s.muan,..unm.u-M -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [51] V71 parflcman Mluslratlnn (at In secficn <33 of lhe EA clearly mennans as ianuws: “/LLUSTRA news (a) A am 5 up-rmry sun 0 Ion Nbtl which rvnocu upon - ch :1! mm. c rrr much can says ma: nra manar a//aged to be Imerlous /5 true, and Ihe murnsrancas are such that It is probably we rrr sad: cass or m rrsmrsr A obtains a damn nyairm c fur dzmagls on the gmund ma: 5 mud to main aul hl5]ustlflc-llon. rm flat I: Imlnmn as zmvmn 5 And 1:, " (urnuhnls man) [55] Turning up me lacts or me presem case, we found that me grounds juagmeru m me so sun relied on bylhe AppeHanl cm nn| Ian nude! any 01 the DYOVVSWHS under semen: 40 to A2 nf the EA1Q5D above [sq We pause heve to note Ihal |hIs noun had, on 17.3 2023, allawsd the Appeuanvs applicauon rn Encl 151 to adduoe Inc said grounds or ;udgmen| as (rash euaanoe. At most, the said grounds or wdgmem are re|svan| and admissible under saaion 43 of me EA 1950. [so] we are nlths oansruared mew that under sacnor. 43 onne EA 1950‘ me produ n ma previous Judgment rnere4y establishes the ausrsnaa at a pnor decrsron onhe noun and nolmng mere 10 sru asx£wL1onrnDm4n71IAA wane sum nu-uhnv M“ be used m mm as uvVmruH|y mm; dun-mm vn muus Wm Imroductton m Tnle is the Appellanfs appeal agetnst the deotsron M the leamad High court Judge ("HCJ") who had dtsrntssed me Appellants aopltoatten to set aslde e oonsent judgment dated 30.5.2017 (“filo con.-nt Judumunl‘ between the 4" Respondent aetne ptalntltl and thaAppeHanl as the deterldanl in Kusla Lumpur High Court Civll Suit Nu WA-22NCC» 195-us/2017 ("sun ms") [21 tn Suil195.me 4" Respondent claimed e total sum o1 RMIB milllorl due and owtng by the Apoellant under two separate loan agreements, d5|Bd 14.1.2015 and 19 1.2016, respectively, the detatls ofwhich shall be discussed later tn mls judgmem. [3] on 29.5.2011. the 4'" Respondent med e notioe el app|lca|iorl praying «or several orders. lnctudtng restrainlng the Appellant ttonr removlng, dealtng, or dtspoetng of tts eeeete up to RM“? rnt ten. [41 on ao.5.2m7, the Appellant and the 4'" Respondent recorded the consent Judgment belore ttte Hlgh Cnurl Ihraugh tttetr reeoecttve seltcttore. lt was agreed and reeetded between the partles tn the consent Judgmenl, among otners, that the Appe||an| was to pay RM1B ntilhon to the 4“ Respondent [51 On 19.5.2017, the Appellant fllsd a tresh suil to set aside the Consent Judgmenl through Kuala Lumour l-ltgn court Clvil sult Ne, w»:- ZZNCC-232-06/2017 ("sult 2:2"). sun 23: was heard oelore the learned HCJ below. 3 stn a§xEWL1unrnDHMn72IAA -nee s.n.t ...n.. M“ t. used m mm o. nllmruflly am; dun-mm VII .rtttne wnxl my We amrm our eamsi aeciaian H1 Dntuk s uaiimruppsn a On v nsmk sun Anwsr bln nmnim Ind oum appssis [2015] 4 ML! :4 in which it was neia as loiiows: -121; Our 5 4: is in pari maisria with s 43 of ms /ndi'sri Ewdsmx Act. isassu on ma Indian auznonuas cited to nun, reamed /m1io4s/ aaininissionar mnsiuaau that in. rurlnnl ior ms mclmunl s 43 is that wary ms is us be tuned .s a sisss ny ism; and ms production of: pnvlausjudgmlnt manly nubllsnu mo uxmnncn on Mar decision. rim. is no pmummion mm a prior/‘udgmcnt is ma corrlnl docislan an ms mam! What ina iaw oi ms iuaicais ssiaoiisnss is ma: ane cannot go behind me umaian in csnain aimiiai lactualciasss based an ma gmurid aipubiic policy run run in 1354:: in such ca mulrbl pmvodindcpvnannniw 1221 me nseionsi underlying a 43 can on gissnsci imm ms sisisnmn: WI Hi;//iriglon‘s case wnicn IS as in//awr ’TIis Cam wnian naa la try ms uaiin for damages knew nothing af ins evidsncs inai was before me Iwvmnal wan it cannot krmw what arguments vmle addressed to ma court or Ms! Influence the court in smving si its decision. Morsovsi, the issue in ma crimi‘Iia/ pmoesdfng in rial identical with ma! iaisea in claim for damages ‘In mar words, u said in ma Imliln clsu OIGODI/krisnna sup»-an vnininsiu Aininsi And Ors AIR 1972 Ker 196 : ii is the duty aims caun m scrullnlu ms saununm or validity or opinion widunss smsising its min inuupsnusnn judgnllni. in in. can on pnviouuuagmonr sucn scnnlny is ilnpassibla bscausn in. sun trying in subsuqunnt cm cannot nopvn lhl cm mdhur iron mo inwies ss mm mun is hearing .n appcaloris ntrying (In pm!/Iaus use an Irish Ivldoncm rm court in ms subuquon: cln has to divide it n N .s.muan,..amim-an ma Sum IHIWDIY win he used m mm as annmuu sun; nan-mm VII AFVLING WM! on thy mltvriult bviun it Ixlmisiny its own Influpendenr /udgmlnl . /231 IN ms face 0/ omwriaimmg aumomisa iocaiiy and iiaiii ioretgii juflsdlcflafls in paniwiar UK (caiors the slaltncry Vm‘iNlnNOrI) and /nciia mat riad been coiiaideiad by ma Iesmed /udicis/ Gammlssroner that a judgment In a anminai use cllmol in uud :1 pmol ol 1 not In Issue In 1 civil cue for mini for dlmlflls, we are mdmed, aa ma /eamedjtldmilal aammiaamiiar did, to agree witn ma above smsmsiit. /24} niaiaims, with Isguld to ma delendarilf aelerice aliustificslioni we are iri agrauiimit with the ieamediumciai commissioiiei that s 0 am- Evldancc Act would bc a bar to ma dlftsndlnls to my on trio /udgniunt or am: or doc!" annotiior court procooding mom 5:: It is I ciiniinai pmcndinp. " (emphasis mm) [:12] As a matter oHac1,whsHhs Appellant smigh| to do in the preserfl oasis was to adiiiii certain passages mm «is High Court’: gmunds oi iuagiiiam in ma so Sm! as evidenoe oi conspiracy to iiiiuia or to daiiaud on \he part oi the Respondents [53] TI1eAppe||ant submilled mat the decision oime High court in the SC suit, which has been atrmisd an anneal, binds this court Reierence was made to the C/aufl ohappeai case at soti Kant Pan 5 on v Fa Pmpmtaa sdn Bhd and olmr appeals [20021] 5 ML! 448. [64] However, we are oi the uortstdemd view that the lam in Goh Keat Pori (supra) can be distinguished iron the facts in ma pieserit case. 12 sin a§xEWL1onmD\1!4p77IAA -ma s.ii.i IHIVVDIY vim be ta... m mm ta aiiiii.ii-y MVM5 dnunvtnnl VII nF\LING WM! [as] in (Sch Keal Pah (supra), me plainiifl med a SIM against tne delandants, ciaiming that the deiendants had agreed to sail tnerr iand ‘spas succsssrbms’, even though tne issues on the uairdity atthe Fartim agreements and their eflecls have been mnciusiueiy decided by the Federal Cowl in andtnercase (Char Fhaik Harv Flrlim Propcnlos sun and [1397] 3 MLJ 18!). [as] Thereiore, the court emppeai in (sun Keat Pan (supra) nad nghtiy eeneiudsd mat the doctrine Mtss[ut1i'caia was applicable, and tne plainlifl was estgpped tram such a dam against the deiendants. [51] It is also pertinent In note that lhs Fsdarai courra judgment In Char Paik Har (supra) pertaining to the Farirm agreements was admitted and considered by the High court and the caurt uIAppea| in Gran Keat Pan (supra) to determine the issue etwhemer tne piaintiifs claim was caught under tne daclrins ufrssjudicata This is cieariy aiiuwed undersection 40 at the EA 1950. but tnrs is not the case here. [as] A oansmerahly similar issue was raised in or Wjandrin v Karpal singn A on man] :4 MLJ 22 in which medeisndant, in tnatcase. sought to attack the piaintitrs character by adrn ing as eurdenee certain passages (mm the Judgment at the court eiAppeai In a separate criminal proceeding. [aw] in addressing Ihls issue, Kamaianatnan Rainam J (as ne tnen was) in DF \/ijandran v Karpal singn 5. ors tsupra) heid as tdiirms "There ra no doubt me: the existence of me /udgmenr al the Court 0/ Apnea! is not a rest in issue rn tins sass. Adrviin-d/y whit lhv firs! 1; SN asu?WL1enmi:Hi4n72IAA wane Sum ...na.. M“ as used a mm as niimruflly sun; dun-mm via .nuua Wmi uwronunnx Is mung In do Is to admit a conarn passm tram -In judqmenl arm cam oIAppuI n Ividvncv In ml: all: I: I: clear mm amnII:IIod authorities an many zyalnstlne Ilrsrdofunduvran mIs scam Sarkar an EV/dance (150. Ed) voI I sIsIas sI I: an para 2 as raIIaws- rm on/m namnu amcung 1 4: appeaIrtu’bs’MxYlo/d:’{1)'Ia’ — treal every casa s cIass by Izsenso that Ina Iuagmnr cIsIIm-d In an us. Inly nor be avnflod olby panics to snaum ass. and (2; Ia marmam Ina Independsnos 12/ scans by pm-nIIng Inc [mm s Irom suommrnq won lhl noun hnriny lhlrrcasu In. iudgmonls olorlnr mus Again up 539 para 4 ‘Mon Is no proyisron In the Act by which ms nctunl mIsIon mm Iindings Inlvld at In a pnvlous ludgmanr cm In und 1: uvlrloncv to dccida khu twinks which an In issue In . plrllcullr ass. sum s deusron may opersla as res judrcala or be relevant unm ss 40.42 to prove asssmon of a ngm, our nthuwist it Is no mm Innn . mm opInIon oxprund on the Imus M a pamcular case and oafrlrzm V5 IaIayanI In moss cases only In whmh I: Is speaauy Iarsrmt In Ina A41 and M na others I Pumfma y Narvdlal FLT 582 Rampalekha y Rarnman AIR 1933 P ego, Hnendla vRaIneswurNR 1925 F625] Skllcmunls amaus In n pnvioux iudymlnl is not admissible nnnu s Is In n subslquunt can In mid. my palms In Issun [Khubrhiram y Ram on AIR 1951 P am 1. 1.: N a§u?WL1unmDHMp72IAA ma Sum IHIWDIY Mu be used m mm a. nflmnnflly MW; dun-mm vn nF\uNG wrm Almost 70 yaau ago, the PM/y Council had occasion to considsr this Issue ms 7: what n/: Lords-mp s'u Jalm Wallis had )0 say 51 o 192 af Ktlmil sooika Raman moi Smglv NR 1929 PC 99 : Tho Indian Evidvncl A-:1 docs not mlh nnarng of fact arrived :1 on ma aviaoncu boron ma co-in In out can: ovldnnco own: not in anon:-r on. From mi; cm and ms numerous oumoiinos oiioo it seems to me was my mu en. oroducuon an pnvtous/udgmonl Inonly utlblishvt rim uximnu an utter decision. Thsrs IS no presumption that s pnor judgment is mo oonocz decision on ma mono: wnoz me raw oi res judlcaia establishes is me: one cannorga bshind no decision in osrlaln sinniai factual cases based on me mound ol puoiic policy /7! aooonmsnno Guplhan v Annnaiu AmmalAIR 1972 Kev ma, Narayana F7//3! ./ said at p 197. Judgments natcuminq Alndsl ss in to 42 are no: relevant at all In respecl orooinion exomssainerein. They can tmaunl only Ia opinion tvidunze and ooinion -vlrlannl Is qunuuny inadmlsslbll Such oplman evidence is, howewr, aommod under s 45 al ino Evidence Ac! wnon mo oom has to form an uplnion upon 5 point oiiaiaign raw or of science or on 0! as m rdenmy oi Ivandwnlfng bulm such cases n L‘: the duly onns com in scmlrmsu the soundness oi valrdmr 0! opinion svfdence sxemising its own imiansndenl judgment In me am ol 5 previous ,u.1gmoni sucn wuiiny u WPDSSID/a because mo com! (vying me subsequent case camel Ieapen the mo and new it on Ms mums as mno ooun IS Ivsaring an appeal oi is rstzying me pleviau: true on fresh evidenm mo coun In an uitmqu-ni can has to ducide n on on inmriois befam It uxomlslng Its nwn Indapondonl 25 N a§xEWL1onmDHMn72IAA um Sum mun MU he used m mm o. nflmnnflly MVM5 dun-mm VII .nu.uc Wm judymunt. Tlranlon my corrclusrarr rs mu ludgmorru qu- Iwqm-ms end as oxpmsion nluplnlon 1:! tin caurls which pronounce them ue not re/mm -r all Ixupt rum: :5 40 to I2 of mu Evldonco An I aglee and accept [Ive views a! we learned ruuga r em Ihsrelors eonwe//ed lo conduoa that men is naming in ma Evidann Act In mm": Ma nancluslon war we sr arrmrzs or flmilngs or ram In arratrru cm can be used :1 vvlduncn In . iuhsoqulnt us: In decide me perms which in In lssul In (no sunuqulnl om ' (omphnls ended) [10] we agree and endorse the ascreron in DP Vuandran (supra) and relleraie that mere is nothing m me an 1950 which arrows me stalemems orfindings oHav:\s in errmrrercaseco be relevam and edmrssims evidence rn a subsequem case to decide me perms which ere In rssue In |he subsequent case, except M the Judgment, order or decree sought to be admilled (afls under any of me pmvisruns under eearons an ta 43 or me EA 1954:. rn aur mind‘ (Ms Is gerrereuy applicable |o crvrl and crime: Prcoeedmgs since :1 mvowes lhe rule of evrdenoe. [11] For Irre same reason, we agree mm me learned HCJ that 7134) /r was apparent Ihmugllom the Prerrmrrs case me: what 1: had sought to do was to unx mu rzmu rnmion Ionn In ma Illiflltluns made zgainst me 3711 nerermm in sun :15 However, as smart. me: I: a rumor cum cumm rrorrr rm mm and thv mmodits sought by the H. rm in me pr-snnl cast rune 5//sganons rrr sun 335 are made out me ramemss sougm, which rrrcluues rspaymenl tu me Plairmfl‘ 16 sw asx3WL1enrnum4p72IAA -we Sum IHIWDIY wm be used m mm we nrVmrr.HIy mm; dun-mrrl vn nF\uNG wnxr fl ofthe Rn/111.54 mu/mn snegsd/y mcelvsd by the 3rd Deiendard would componsm lb! ma nu-pod wronalul Ion omm ntm Dlmonly by an. Pmmm (:35) /I. apart lrum ma RM15 mnnon loan, mm was any damage sufiurid by tho Plzinlilf by rlasun of any coruplrucy or much ol any or am: wrong. that is «norm: mlkrar Ind on. which an M-Inmr my chaos. to pursue zyalnsr mas. mdtwduars -uogur to 1:. pm a! (no oamprncy and an to mm: mm pcrsnnally Iiabln. ms case was however. many In liquid to ma (Jonson! ./udgmm and a matlubcmun the two companm i lhv Plzintllfznd Mo an Dohndlnr," (omphnla addad) [72] As such, we hold that me Appellant should not be allnwed |o adrml sen ' passages from me mgr. oourrs grounds ol judgmenl in me so sun as evidence av canspwacy m xnjuva in (mud on the pan o! the Respondents. Therelures lor this sppeax. we dusrmss an of |he Appeusnrs references to me findings dune Hwgh coun nu ma sc Suvl. Sncond lssuu: wvmmermo Laanlnd Trial Judge Ermd In HI: Findings on Thu Enact MTM as 144 ordn- [73] The Appellant submmed (hat the weamed HCJ had and In ms nndmgs that me 05 144 Order did rm! exusx at me me me Cnnsem Judgment was entered m|o thus, no party wdmd have been aware orme Get-Aalauan granted undevme as 144 Older. The/wpsuamaxso suhmmed that me weamed HCJ erred in hmdmg that me nrsnsacnons mau me 17 sw a§u?WL1onmDHMp71IAA 'NnI2 Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm me mwwruuly mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm Appeiiam entered Into with min: panics are noi ipsa faclo mm and void under me Turquanifs mis. [74] Aounrliing |n the Appeiiam, me resolution oflhs aoam pi airscmis pamcuiany on 29.5.2017, was mm and void and can no longer stand in am at me as M omsr, which operates re|ruspec1ive|y Hence. Ihe appoimmem oi Messrs. wai Li Tan 5. Cheong (0 acl as the Appellant‘: counsel in SUM 195 and the mstmcuun |0 PW3 In rewrd the Consent Judgmam were also null and void. us] in support of its submission, the Appeiiam isiiaa on ma High can ease u1Dnm' Jafhr bln Mohd All &Anorv.lan(In and 5 Or: (Publll; Bunk Bhd, lnltrvnnor) [2|1|11]4 MLJ zin. no] The same issue was already canvassed news the Veamed iic.i below In our View, the learned HCJ had canecfly aisunguisiiaa me iapis VI Dale‘ JEIWZI bin Mona An &Ano! (supra) wim Ihe facts in ma present case‘ as can be seen belaw ‘[101] In Jasalers anon naming dons pulsuam :9 ma rssalulron War zo ma rrljurlcflafl was set aside No momury Iunucrlan by in: new band mrougn ma imrv-nu bank was s. side 11021/n i/is case at hand, the scam rsso/ulian of 29*" May 2017 had been lmplemontod no cerium Judgment was wmred fritu ai ma lrmfi when me OM19! in 05 144 had no: been made Nlllhar the coun nor rho p-mos in sun 195 com nan bson um um um pm: in as 144 would ha mm. with me deolslatron in paragraph (31. ' (nmphasis addad) 23 sin a§xEWL1unmD\1!4p71IAA -ma Sum IHIVVDIY Mu as used a mm aa aiiiimii-y MW; dun-mm VII AFVLING wrui [171 in aduirion, (here is nothing to show that PW3 had any rmwieage or lhe irregularillss in ina management at me Appsiiani cnmpany The vmrram ta act was also signed by the 1" Respondent. who was still the managing director of the Appelianfs campariy at that rnaleviai time Based on ma circumstances cfthe present caser we agree wrm tho iearnau HCJ that the Appellants appointed counsel was entilled to assume that the Appellant had acted within its conslitutiun and power and is protected by this rule. [73] We also agree with the iearrrad HCJ's findings mat the dealing or transaction bamaen me Appaiiani and is appointed counsei is valid by applying me pnncrples or real and csiensrbia autrienry and me ‘indoor maM9emen| rule‘ or |he TuNuarrd‘s me, [79] In L» mm Kaong v. Fadason Holdlnns Sdn and 5 Omar Appnals [2n11] 1 cm 295, «ms Cuun‘ inrougn Her Ladyship Mary Linn JCA (mwl FCJ) mi It is without dawn! ma: Lee was the Managing Director or me rsspondarrl at ma nmarrai Irma. It would be slh m say that . Mznzylnq Dlncfar is glnlnlly auinonsaa lo rranun um sure: or propoms on ban." 0! ma respondent including anrenng ana siqniny on aanan afthe mspondlnl such SPA: as than producod Ind admlmd at war. /ri fact, ma aumemrcily and man oma corilems in air the SPA: are not challenged rira SPA: won genuine sgrearnanis in salt ma prunarrras lo ma appai/anra. wnar was aisparaa was sinrniy ma matter or payrnarris The responvenr euuld not naca any ayysllanfs paymsrils ll! man moonlx, and lot that reason my that Ins apperranis irm conspired wrrn Lee to dslraud ma Iesporidunl. mm enasa clmumsmnccs, w. lully agm mm in. nppullunu inn my turned 29 SW asxxWL1unn.DHi4n72IAA warn s.rr.r ...nn.r win he used m mm in nrwirrafily sun; dun-rinrrl VII nriurm wrui fl JO was many lmsnlous whon finding man the -ppomm wm not uvrlrtodlo myon the me In Turqulnd '5 ca rn lppclllnts wm pcrfoclly anfillod ta rely on me real and osnnsrm -umomy or La as the SPA: mm mm uni nmbrcublo. Conssquenl/)4 ma Laa /sttevs are rrgnuy swdence me: me apaa//ama mm re/y an In prvvs each 0! the» claws - (ampnam addnd) [DD] Them Is nmmng in me evxdence \0 suggest that the Consent Judgment, which was recorded by 1haApps|Ianl mmugn PW3 In S|A\l195. was amamau megauy ov mmugn wand. [31] In addmon, we agree w|tl1me\eamat1 HCJ that Vick of mandate 077 the pan Mme oounsd per se Is not a valwd ground to sel aswde it consent Judgment. Any admn Io reouvev any losses can be «am by the chem agamsl me counsel (see Wlugh and mum v HB Cllllnrd a Sam Lu: and anolhur [1932] Ch 314, Ln rang Siang Y Lu aaax Thyi Holdings Sdn mm [mm] 5 pm 1:; [ma] 4 cu :34, and Skinning Cual Sdn Bhd (appolnted recaivar and manager) a Ors v Malaysia Eulldillg Snclnly Ehd [2015] 1|) MLJ I31 [82] Therelore, we msagree wnh me AppeHanHhaHhe Vsamsd HCJ had erred m ms findings that the appoummem av PW3 as the AppeHan|’s oounse\ m Suit195 was nun and void sinoeme 05144 ordenm not exvsl at me wne (he Cansenl Judgment was entered mm «ms nu parly wouvd have been aware or me declar n granted under me 05 144 order. We «mm: nu mam m «ms nssue so sw .a.muan,..unmau-M -ma Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm a. nflmruflly am; nan-mm VII nF\uNG pm [51 on 22 s,2oi7, an order was eotained to slay the execullon oflhe consent Judgment pending the dlspasal olthis acllan [1] on 18.92019, after a lull trial. the teamed HCJ dismissed the Appellant's claim with oosrs. Dissatisfied. the Appellant med this appeal agains| the declslun ot the learned HCJ, Factual Background [3] The Appellant was a pupllo company listed in aurse Malaysia at the rnatenal time. The 1" Respondent was appointed the Appellants executive director on 5.12 2D14arld suoseguently oeeanre lheAppellant's managing director on 14 7.2015. The 2''“ Respondent was appointed as the Appellants executive director on is 12.2014. The 3'" Respondent was one ol the Appellanfs oirectors up unol an 3,2nl7. The 3-“ Respondent was also the direclnr and shareholder at the 4" Respondent. The 4" Respondent was the Appellants predator, the plalnllfl tn Sull 195 ano the beneficlary of the consent Judgment. The 3-“ Pally was the Appellants sxecullva director lrorn t B.201A until 29.32019 [9] on 5.1 2016, through a olreular resolutron, the Appellants board or alrectors resolved that its directors be authorised to source tor and pmcule loans to the extent at RM2,5 rnlllion since the Appellant needed suhslantial tunds to carry out eenein proposed oorporate exercises. The Appellants financial oolrgatton then included disbursements, protess onal eoneullatlon tees and tollow—up works mrlceming the carrying out ol due diligenoe oonoerning 23 vendors from the People's Republic or chrna ("PR The Appellants directors signed this resolution, including Data‘ 4 SW a§xEWL1unmDHMn72IAA -use s.n.i ...nt.r will he used m mm lite ollmrrallly snn; dun-vlnrrt vn .nt.ne Wml Third Issu Whlmor The Appellant Had Sucnusfully Pmmn That The consent Judgment Wu ohtai Id Through Fraud [as] The Appeliant, in their reply, submitted that the teamed HCJ tailed to take into consideration the ioilowing relevant evidence adduced during the inst. [341 Adeerding to the Appellant, on 29 05.2017, the 1" and 2"“ Respondents attended the board at dire::lors' meeting, which hsgan at 1D.fl(] a.in. Only the 1st and 2nd Respondents attended the meeting, in the midst or the meeting at 11.00 e m., the 1‘ and 2"“ Respondents were interrupted by the once clerk me intermed them that the cause papers tor suit 195 were served on the Appeuaiit This meeting was held in the Appetiants since. The 1-‘ Respondent then confirmed that suit 195 was discussed during the meeting there was ne evidence to show that the 1-‘ Respondent or the 2nd Respondent had made any attamps to contact Datuk Karen to iniorm her er SLHI 195 and had instead Named the dime oierx tor not iniorrning her. Despite the 1" and 2“ Respondents knowing that tneirtenure as dirsmurs was coming to an end, they eaiied idra board ei directors’ meelmg and appointed a eoiicitdr to record the consent Judgment. on the same day, at around 5.00 p m . the 1" Respondent met with PW3lmm Meaara. wei Li Tell it. cheong tortne firsi time, where Pwa was given the uause papers ipr suit 195. Payment by the Appeuant tn the 23 Eanefiuary companies ended up in the 3'" Respondents personai coflers. [us] All at the above has been Oansidsred by the teamed HCJ. as can be seen oeiow: 3] sin a§xEWL1unmD\1!4n71IAA -nae s.ii.i ...n.i M“ be ta... m mm we niimnaflly MVM5 dun-rtnnt via AFVLING WM! "/13211:»: to be conosaemniab/scmly. lhe circumstance: mvmgr/so to me Consent ./udgnieni wauid raise concem to an Oldmflvy man an my sites! ms lac! ms! me new resolulfon 10 have Ihe Consenl Judgment enima was msssdlusl my day bsfura me 1-‘ and 2-4 Delendarils wars removed as uimcms, ms lac! that me instructions Iegardrng ms cm-issnv ./uaizmenr were given to me sauaiors on in: my avian/nu were me 1‘ and 2" osiendams wars removed and the Inc! the! me Cmlwlit Judgment was entemd ma ruiiowig mommy of sum ol my 2017. /uiiowmciassiy by me 1" and 2'' Dksclmslsmoval as dlreclarx ism that molrimg‘ all nu ma ri-vow auomming um/:1 nmt not-nous 113:1 Suspicious though in. clmumsllncas my appear to no. It nu In be upon ti/Idnicl um um izw, um ctsn In docldsd by in: Dunn.’ (cmphnll addnd) [as] We do not 539 any reasnn In dspartlmm me findings ullhe lsamed HCJ in our view‘ me Appenanuaiied to snow anyappesiabie error on the Dan ofthe ieamen HCJ. we found no men! in unis issue ‘rm Law 0!! Applllatn iimmmion [37] II is Inls Ihatwhsri a matter comes up on anneal, an appellate noun is required In delennine wnemer me inai court had arrived a| as decision or findings correctly based on me reievam law and wamisnea evidence It is aiso Inte that an appenaie oourl will not generauy intervene with me decision ola man eoun unless ms trial oourl is snewn to be piamiy wrong in anmng at us aeoisian. A piaimy wrong as decision vflhe inai court is arrived at without iud al sppreczaiion onne n happsns wnsn me :2 SN asu?WL1unmuHMn71IAA ‘Nata Sum ...ns.. win he used M mm Die minmu-y MW; dun-mm VI] .nune pm fl evmence (see UEM Gwup and v. Genisys Imnqraud Enginnn Pu Ltd 3. Arm [2010] 9 CLJ 735: [2010] MLJU 2225. Chow vee wnn a. Anar v. cvmo An Put [1973] 1 LNS 32. watt or Thomas v. Thomla [1:47] AC 434, Gnu Vook cum 5 Arm v. Lu Inn Chill 5. Or: [2004] 4 CLJ me; [2005] 2 MLJ 1, and N9 Hoa Kul G-Anor v. Wundy Tan Lea Pang. Ad ralor of The Eslales 04 ran Ewe Kw-ng, Dnceand 5 Or: [2010] 10 CLJ 112020] NILJU Me 2o1n]12 MLJ :7; Conclusion [:31 In conduslon‘ aftev heanng me subrmsswons by aH pames and aflev careqm perms! ov me appeax records, we have come to a unammous decusxan that (have m rm mm to «ms appeal We see he appealame error on the pan or the learned HC.J‘s aemsmn Tnerefnre‘ the Appeuanrs appeax m me presem case ws dwsmlssed Mm cuss u1RM2D,UOD on in each Respanaem sumecno paymenlalallccatc Conn Is heveby amrmed Dated’)° Dlsember 2023 he decnsnon puns Hwgh 32 -mp Sum M... M“ be used m M, me nugvuuly mm; nnmmnnl VII mum wrw sw aSu?WL1unmDHMp72IAA sollclnm Far Thu Agmlllut: Am D: Siwa dan Jashui Lawson Cawla Teluan Badlpslsr Ponnudurax De suva D3441, Snlsns Dulamas No, ‘L JV! Dutamas1 saaao Kuala Lumpur Sollcltor For 1" Rngondcnt: Dam‘ Knh Mu: Tee (Mewakih Dvi Sendin) Sollcllav For 2"‘ Rugondonz: Yeap Km: Hock Teluan Kali &Assocvatss Suits 15 D7. W\sma Zelan Ja¥an Taswk Permawsuri 2 Bandar Tun Rezak seooo Kuala Lumpur sollclmu For 3" R Igond Alma Fllza EInlIAbd Muhsxn Tetuan Ramlw Vusufl & Cu. 020475, Datarsn 3 Two Square .|a\an 19/1 46300 Petaling Jaya Se\angor sell-: r For 4"‘ gondem Suxanne Aracklaraj Taman AMVH Rajasurya Unit 1305‘ Amcarp Trade Centre 15 Persiaran Baral 45050 Pehlmg Jays Selangur 10 sw asu?WL1unmuHMp72IAA -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm En cnlng slew @ YH cnlng slew ("Date' En Respandenl dld nol sign lnis resoluliun. and me an‘ Pally The aw [101 on 14.1.2015. lne Appellant slgned a loan agreement men the 4"- Respsndenl ("1' Lulu Aglnmlnl") Tnnmgn lnls agreement. me am Reapandenl agreed la lssue an RM2.5 nnlllan laan la me Appellanl. The lean was already disbursed la lne Appellanl by way or a cheque (111 on 19.1.2016, lne Appellanrs board at dlreslms, l.e ‘ me 1'‘, 2"“ and 3"’ Respondents, me am Pally and Dam‘ En, had a mealing la discuss seurclng funds or appmxlmalely RM155 million to meel ils llnanaal aallganans and lnlsnded business exlension plans, which lncludes agency agreenlenls mm several compirlles from me PRC. The business exlenslon plans were avbmved. To max ellael, ll was also resolved lnal lne Appellanl was aulnonsed le enter into anelner lnan agreamenl wiln me 4* Respondent lar RM155 mlHlon ln lne same meellrlgl me 1*‘ Respondent‘ as me managlng dlrector lnen, was eulnorised to exeaule lne agency and clher ineiaenul agreernenls on benall el me Appellanl la lnalellecl. [121 on me same day, lne Apaellanl damned lne secarld loan (mm lne 4ln Respandenl anmunung la RM15 5 nnlllen and formally documented ln a loan agrsemerll ("Z"“ Loan Algmemnnl") It was scaled ln lne agreelnenl that one or me main purposes ol sesunng me loan was lo pay for me casn deposlls lo lne 22 PRC eernpanles la enler lnla agency agreements vlnln menu. [13] on 3.2.2015, lne Appellanl enlered 2: exsluswe agency agreements wlln me 23 PRC oompanles. rnese agency agreelnenls oanler exdusive nghls la me Appellanl lo manual and plumole me s an .s.muan,..anllm-ea wane s.n.l ...ns.. M“ as HSQA m mm ea nllmruflly MW; dun-mm vn .nnna we produds and services of me 2: PRO oprnpania VI Miflaysia and singapcie. The terms or all the agency agreernems are inaienauy the same. [14] Under these agency agreements‘ the Appenanl was required \0 DEV RM3 05 nimcn as agency iees. nie Appeuani was also obhged to pay inmai aepcaiis amouming to RM1159 milhun The iniiian cepcsns and ins baianca onne agenpyvees were lo ce paic ic 23 ccinpaniea inecrpcraiaa in Malaysia by me respective PRC companies (--2: no Enmllclary Comnlnlca"). Both the infllal deposits and the balanoa Mlhe agency lees were in be paia within seven days er me execunpn or me agency agreanienis. [151 On 3.2.2016, Ine Appcllani sucsessmny paid me RM11 59 IYHIHOVI iniiiai deposits la me 23 PRO Eendflciary companies. However, the Appellant was unable xo pay me bciance 01 me agency iees. totalling apprnxirnaiely RM3 04 biuiun. m1 on 10.2.2016, due in nnevaiiine o1(heAppeHantIo pay me baiance afthe agency fees‘ meAppeIlanI and me 23 PRO ccnipanies entered Inlo seldsmenl agieemenis in wnicn ine Appeflanl agreed lo aim and issue ordinary shares ovRMo.4a eacn in me 23 we companies. [171 Inc Appellant also snlarsd mlo a seiuemeni agrsamentwith me an Respondent on ma same day. In unis sanienieni agreement. me Appeucni acknawbdged its Indebtedness 10 the 4"’ Respondent‘ which was agreed up as settled by allvlfing snares in me Appellam company cc me 4'” Responaeni. 5 sin asu?WL1cnn.nHMn71IAA -nae Sum nu-nhnv M“ be used a mm is. mVmruH|y MW; dun-mm vn AFVLING WM! [131 However, ttiere was a condition Precedent to this settlement agreement in wriioti ttie approval otlne Appellants snarenolders must be obtained in an EGM tor tne lssuanee and allotment ol its snares to tire A” Respondent witnln Iwc niontns ol tne settlement agreement or witii sttoti exlertslnn ot time as may he agreed upon It is also stipulated in ttiis settlement agreement that tile 4' Respondent may terminate ttie agreement iltne oonditiori preoedent is not lulrtlled. The number ol snares Io be issued and allotted to tile 4'" Respondent was agreed at 45 million ordinary shares cf RMo.4u eacn, totalling Rma million. [19] on 23.9.2015, tne seoonties commission Malaysia tusc") issued a will against tile 3” Respondent. Tnewrit was originally issued as Kltala Lurnpur t-lion coon Civil suit No: WA—22NCVC-603-09/2015 out was later redesignaled as Clvll Sult Na: WA-2ZNCC»335»D9/2016 Sui! 315']. [201 in suit :35, tiie so claimed tiiat tile 3" Respondent nad breached oenain pmvlslnrls oltrie capital Mamet and services Act 2007 ("CMSA 2on7") in whtsii tile 3"’ Respondent was alleged to naire oreated an elaborate seneme through trio 4'" Defendant to detraud the Appellant to cause wrongiul loss nie so also claimed tnat out at the RMl1.59 million paid by tile Appellant to tile 23 PRC companies, RMlt 54 million nad eventually ended up in the 3'“ Respondents eotters. Tire sc suwesslully claimed against me 3'" Respondent selore tne Hign coun ‘rile decistorl was aflirmed on awsal to tire coun otttpoeal, and tne 3"’ Respondent tailed to optain leave to appeal to the Federal court. :21: on 21.10.2016. Data‘ Eii lodged a police repon against tile 3"’ Respondent and Dam clement Tat wai Loon t--nato clement 1 , ttie 3'“ Respondents husband Dato clement Tai was also the Appellants r SlN a§xEWLlunrnDlll4n77IAA -roe s.ii.i lldlvlhll wlll he used M mm is. nllflliullly Mlitls dun-vlnirt vta aFlLING Wflxl oorpprete adviser. The allegation in the polioe repon was similar to the claims made by the so in suit 335. [22] on 30.3 2ol7. an Annual General Meeting (“AGM") was held, and a position was taken that Data‘ should cease to be Dale Sr! D! Chlew Han Chlng‘s atiemate director due to the letters retirement aflsr the said meeting. Data‘ Eii etiallenged the position through an original summons wed in the Kttala Lurnpur High coun through Orlglrlallrlg summons No: wA.2tNcc-144-at/2ot7 ("es 144'‘). [231 on 23.4 2017, the av Pally gave nmice according ha seetien alottal at the Companies Act zota (“CA ZMB") reauisitionirig end EGM te be held on an 5.2017 at 11 a m. The proposed agenda tor the EGM included the removal or the 1- and 2"“ Respondents as the Appellant's directors mediate etieet wil [24] On 22 5.2ut7at around to la p.ni , a notice ottne Appellants board of directors‘ meeting was issued through email pyone Nicholas Tan. who was desoritsed as the Appellants executive director The meeting was scheduled to Lake place an 29.5 2017 at to a.m. [25] on 25 5.2017, the 4" Respondent edmmenoed suit 195 against the Appellant. in this suit. the 4*” Respondent claimed the repayment at the money whim was lent to the Appellant through the 1-‘ and 2"-4 Loan Agreements with interests due to the nun—l‘u|fi|ment nf the oon ris precedent in the settlement agreement resulting in the settlement agreement being duly tenrninated by the 4'" Respondent. on the same day, the am Respondent also applied tor a Mareva lniunotion to restrain the Appellant trpm dealing with its assets up to RM1B million. a sin a§xEWL1uflmDl1l4n72IAA -use s.ii.i Ilnlvlhll will he used is mm Die nllnlrullly MIN; dun-vlnril vta nFlLING wnxl [zul on 29.5.2017, only the 1" and 2''’ Respondents had attended the board meeting. The 3'“ Party had opieered and refused to attend the meeting since the EGM to remove the 1" and 2"’ Respondents lronr directorship was already scheduled for the next day. [271 It was resolved during the poard meeting that the Appellant was to appoint Messrs wei Ll Tan rt. Ctteong to act as its advocates and solicitors to negotiate with Messrs Tan Norizen &Ass0cl'aIas to enter a consent iudgment with the Al" Respondent regarding the claim and the Mareva Injunction granted against the Appellant. It was also resolved that the 1" Respondent be authorised as the managing director to sign all mandates. instructions‘ and relevant dnmtrlenls. tzal sirnrenieet singn art aatdev singn ("PW3"), one at me panneis in Messrs wei LI Tan & cneorig, was instructed to attend the nearing at the 4"‘ Respnndenrs application lar Mamva |n]unc|i0rI which was scheduled an me next day, i 2 ml 30 5 2017 Awarranl In RC1 was executed, and he wa structed to record e consent iudgment witn trie 4"‘ oetendanr on behall er the Appellant [29] on the morning at 30.5.2017. the parties entered and renamed the Consent Judgment for suit 195 through their respective setiottnrs [30] The EGM convened as scheduled on the same day at around 11 am. The resolution to remove the 1" and 2‘ Respondents was passed, as a result, they were removed trom being the Appellants directors. [31] on 19.6 2ol7, the Appellant med a tresh suit to set aside the consent Judgment through suit 232, which was heard betore the learned HCJ below 9 SW ssreimtienmeiiirerzrmt -nee s.ii.i ...ie.i will he used e varw ee nllnlriallly Mlhls dun-vlnril via AHLING Wflxl [:21 on 25 5.2017, Dalo‘ EH was suwesslul in riis application in us MA (“tho as 44 Ordnr"). ii waa aideied, among ot|1ers,lhat: 13) SMEYLI uekiemi banawa spa-spa mssyuslal komvnnyl Lsmbsga Firlgarulv Dalsmiari dun ssmuu I850/USHEKD/us} yang kunormyfl ieian dl/ll/uskufl oian Lembega Pangansh uaiandan same we snare nyal-I aiaii ssbi/iklvyil den sama ads di maiyuaral fizikal ztall ms/s/ilrmsalual pekelilmg aiaii sebsllkriye, darlpsda 303 2917 den seiamsnya epawa peiiyeiieen Plairilrl sebayar aadiang peligismh Delenduri nvluh dfkemalrkan sania ada secara kaneizimir slsu sebellknysi adeian iidiik an an zaaial “ [:3] An appeai was mad againsi me decision in us 144 but was siinsequenuy miidrawn. [341 on 13.9.2019, anei a mu man, the iaamaa HCJ dismissed me Appellanfs aiaini in siiii 232 wim oasis. Dissafisfied, ine Appeiiani med iiiis agpeai againsi me dec IOVI or lhe ieained HCJ, which was heard before us. [35] Before our decision is delivered, ms Appeliaiii had. by way ola ieuier da\ed A 9 2023, iiiionnea niis OOHI1 that ii is eonnning iia prayers io: a. sei aside the decision omie High coiin on 13.9.2019 h. set aside me canseni Jiidgiiieni and c for costs to be paid by me Respundenis lo ine Appeuani. id SIN :§xEWL1oflmD\1!4n71lAA -use s.ii.i Illflhlv M“ as in... is mm we siiiimiiiy MVM5 dnunvinnl wa nF\uNG WM!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

A-05-202-05/2021

PERAYU 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) JANNY CHEAH RESPONDEN TAN HOO ENG

Abridgment of time to file Petition of Appeal - Records of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal filed pursuant to Order 18 of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 for appeals originated from a Criminal Court- The difference in classification between civil and criminal contempt.

21/12/2023

YA Datuk Hanipah Binti FarikullahKorumYA Datuk Hanipah Binti FarikullahYA Datuk Nor Bee Binti AriffinYA Datuk Wira Hj Ahmad Nasfy bin Hj Yasin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4e5a865f-8cd4-42f4-8485-6ab5c8c678da&Inline=true

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: A-05-202-05/2021 BETWEEN 1. CIMB BANK BERHAD (Company No: 13491-P) 2. JANNY CHEAH …APPELLANTS AND TAN HOO ENG … RESPONDENT HEARD TOGETHER WITH IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: A-05-203-05/2021 BETWEEN 1. CIMB BANK BERHAD (Company No: 13491-P) 2. JANNY CHEAH 3. LIM CHEW LIANG … APPELLANTS AND TAN HOO ENG … RESPONDENT 21/12/2023 14:50:52 A-05-202-05/2021 Kand. 130 S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [In The High Court of Malaya at Ipoh In Perak Darul Ridzuan Criminal Application No. AA-44-1-01/2020 BETWEEN TAN HOO ENG … APPLICANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR … RESPONDENT AND 1. CIMB BANK BERHAD (Company No: 13491-P) 2. JANNY CHEAH … PROPOSED RESPONDENTS FOR COMMITTAL] [In The High Court of Malaya at Ipoh In Perak Darul Ridzuan Criminal Application No. AA-44-1-01/2020 BETWEEN TAN HOO ENG … APPLICANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR … RESPONDENT AND 1. CIMB BANK BERHAD (Company No: 13491-P) 2. JANNY CHEAH 3. LIM CHEW LIANG … PROPOSED RESPONDENTS FOR COMMITTAL] S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 CORUM: HANIPAH BINTI FARIKULLAH, JCA NOR BEE BINTI ARIFFIN, JCA AHMAD NASFY BIN HAJI YASIN, JCA INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The appellant filed two (2) motions before us (Encl. 45 in Appeal 202 and Encl. 39 in Appeal 203) for abridgement of time to file and serve their petition of appeals in order for their appeals to be accepted as valid and proper. [ 2 ] The two motions were filed by the appellant pursuant to a preliminary objection raised by the respondent that the two (2) petitions of appeal filed in both appeals were contrary to Order 65(1) of the Rules of Court of Appeal 1994 (‘’RCA 1994) and section 53(1) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”). [ 3 ] The respondent is the applicant in these committal proceedings. The appellants were cited by the respondent for non-compliance with the court order. The leave to commence the two committal proceedings was granted by the High Court. The appellants filed an application before the High Court S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 to set aside to set aside the leave application but were refused by the High Court. Hence, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. BACKGROUND FACTS [ 4 ] The background facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows. [ 5 ] The respondent’s accounts with the first appellant i.e. CIMB Bank Berhad (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank””) were frozen vide two Freezing Orders dated 30.04.2014 and 15.05.2014 respectively, pursuant to Section 44 of Anti- Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (“AMLATFA”). [ 6 ] Prior to the lapse of the Freezing Orders, a Section 50 AMLATFA Seizure Order dated 24.7.2014 (“Section 50 Seizure Order”) was issued by the Public Prosecutor directing the Bank to seize the respondent’s accounts with the Bank. [ 7 ] On 23.7.2020, the Ipoh High Court ordered that the respondent is at liberty to utilise her properties that were unlawfully seized by the Public Prosecutor. S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [ 8 ] Vide a letter dated 24.7.2020, the respondent’s solicitor served the Bank with the Court Order dated 23.7.2020 in order to inform the Bank that both Freezing Orders were set aside and that the respondent was free to deal with her accounts. [ 9 ] On 3.8.2020, the Bank filed an application for clarification of the 23.7.2020 Court Order to clarify the ambit of the 23.7.2020 Court Order as:- (a) The 23.7.2020 Court Order only made reference to the Section 44 Freezing Orders as having been set aside (the Section 50 Seizure Order not mentioned); and (b) The Bank was not a party to these subject proceedings and not named as a party to the 23.7.2020 Court Order [10] At the hearing of the Bank’s clarification application on 11.8.2020, the Learned High Court Judge took the position that as the Bank was not a party to the proceedings, the Bank had no locus standi to seek clarification of the Court Order dated 23.7.2020. However, the learned High Court Judge did state that the 23.7.2020 Court Order was intended to also set aside the Section 50 Seizure Order. [11] Following the feedback from the clarification, on 11.8.2020, the Bank released the respondent’s accounts. S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [12] The respondent’s solicitor, by its letter dated 25.8.2020 to the Bank, gave notice that the respondent will not pursue committal proceedings against the Bank for failing to comply with the Order dated 23.7.2020 if the Bank or its solicitors tender an unreserved apology to the Ipoh High Court Judge within 7 days. [13] On 28.8.2020, the Bank through its solicitor handed a copy of a letter of apology dated 27.8.2020 and the solicitor’s letter dated 28.8.2020 to the Learned High Court Judge’s secretary placing on record that at no time had the Bank and/or its solicitors intended to act in breach/contempt of the 23.7.2020 Court Order and explaining the events that passed since such Order. [14] The respondent had however by such date already filed its ex-parte application and obtained leave to commence the first committal proceedings against the appellants on 18.8.2020. [15] The appellants proceeded to file Encl. 47 to set aside the Order for Leave granted for the respondent to commence the first committal proceedings. [16] The respondent had also obtained leave to commence the second committal proceedings against the appellants on 8.1.2021. S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [17] Following that, the appellants proceeded to file Encl. 71 to set aside the Order for Leave granted for the respondent to commence the second committal proceedings against the appellants. [18] Both Encl. 47 and 71 were heard together and were dismissed by the High Court Judge. Following to the dismissal, the appellants filed in this court Appeal 202 against the decision on Encl. 71 and Appeal 203 against the decision on Encl. 47. [19] The appellants then filed Encl. 45 in Appeal 202 and Encl. 39 in Appeal 203 to regularise their petitions of appeal filed out of time in order for their appeals to be accepted as valid and proper. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS [20] On 19.11.2021, the respondent by a Notis Bantahan Awal Terhadap Rayuan-Rayuan dated 19.11.2021 (Encl. 36 in Appeal 202 and Encl. 30 in Appeal 203) raised a preliminary objection, inter alia, that the Petitions of Appeal filed by the appellants in both Appeals 202 and Appeal 203 failed to comply with Rules 65(1) of the RCA 1994 and section 53(1) of the CJA 1964. S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 The Facts Leading to the Applications [21] Following to the filing of Appeal 202 and Appeal 203, the appellants on 16.6.2021, had filed and served on the respondent’s solicitors, appeal records for Appeal 202 and Appeal 203 together with the memorandum of appeals relating to both appeals. [22] On 5.7.2021, at the case management before the Court of Appeal’s Deputy Registrar, attended to by solicitors for the appellants and the respondent, the Deputy Registrar directed that: (a) as appeal records had also already been prepared by the Ipoh High Court (since the appeals originated from a Criminal Court), the appeal records prepared by the Ipoh High Court would apply to the appeals and the appeal records prepared by the appellants’ solicitors were expunged. (b) the appellants’ solicitors file/serve the Petitions of Appeal for both Appeals containing the appellants’ grounds of appeal on/before the next case management on 11.8.2021. [23] Pursuant to the 5.7.2021 directions, the Petitions of Appeal were duly filed by the appellants on 11.8.2021. [24] On 11.8.2021, a Case Management was held before the Court of Appeal Registrar attended to by solicitors for the appellants and respondent. S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 The Court of Appeal Registrar confirmed the appellants’ Petitions of Appeal in the Court of Appeal filing system and gave directions for filing of written submissions and fixed a hearing date of the appeals. Submission of the Parties [25] The respondent submitted that the petition of appeals must be filed within 10 days upon receipt of the appeal records according to Section 53(1) of the CJA 1964. Thus, the petitions of appeal should have been filed by the appellants on 11.07.2021 as the appeal records containing the High Court’s Ground of Judgement were served on 01.07.2021 and the receipt was confirmed by the appellants’ counsel on 02.07.2021. [26] The respondent highlighted that even though the appeals read “Rayuan Jenayah”, the appellants’ solicitors have prepared 16.6.2021 appeal records together with Memorandum of Appeal on their own accord like a civil appeal. [27] Further, the respondent contended that the appellant’s Affidavit in Support of their motions filed herein contained a serious allegation against the Deputy Registrar when it was stated that the Registrar allegedly directed the appellants’ solicitor to file the petition of appeals on/before the next case management date on 11.08.2021, which is way beyond the statutory required 10 days time limit. It is argued by the respondent that the appellants’ solicitors S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 should have been aware that the Deputy Registrar cannot override a statutory provision (i.e. Section 53 of the CJA 1964) to grant an extension of time to file Petitions of Appeal. [28] Therefore, the respondent submitted that as there are no other explanations as to why the appellants could not file the petition of appeals on or before 11.07.2021, hence, the respondent’s application ought to be dismissed. [29] On the other hand, the appellant contended that the respondent’s Preliminary Objections Notice dated 19.11.2021 (which were served on the appellants’ solicitors on 22.11.2021, 9 days prior to the hearing of Appeal 202 and Appeal 203 on 6.12.2021) of non-compliance with Rule 65(1) of the RCA 1994 and Section 53(1) of the CJA 1964, is an afterthought and an abuse of the Court’s process. [30] It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent did not raise any objections to the Petitions of Appeal: (i) on the 5.7.2021 Case Management when directions by the Court of Appeal were given for filing of the Petitions of Appeal on/before 11.8.2021; (ii) upon receipt of the Petitions of Appeal on 10.8.2021; S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (iii) at any of the subsequent Case Managements on 11.8.2021 and 6.9.2021. [31] The appellants also contended that the 16.6.2021 appeal record together with Memorandum of Appeal were filed based on the civil nature of committal proceedings and appeal against the Committal Leave Orders regardless of the originality of criminal proceedings before the High Court. [32] It was stressed by the appellants that the Memorandum of Appeal and the Petition of Appeal are both identical and were received by the respondent without any objection until three (3) months later vide the notice of Preliminary Objections dated 19.11.2021. [33] Therefore, it was submitted for the appellants that the Preliminary Objections were an afterthought and an abuse of the Court’s process particularly when the appellants have filed motions to enlarge/abridgement of time with full explanation given on the reasons for the delay. [34] Whilst maintaining the position that the 16.6.2021 Memorandum of Appeals were in due compliance with the Rules that apply with the Petitions of Appeal satisfying the administrative requirement for ‘Criminal Appeals’, the appellants had in the abundance of caution filed this application to enlarge time until 10.8.2021 for filing/service of the Petitions of Appeal. S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 DECISION [35] It must be noted that Appeal 202 and Appeal 203 arose from the appeals by the appellants against the two decisions of the High Court which granted leave to commence committal proceedings against the appellants. [36] Referring to the Federal Court decisions in Tan Sri Dato’ (Dr) Rozali Ismail & Ors V Lim Pang Cheong & Ors [2012] 2 CLJ 849, this Court in Uthayakumar Ponnusamy V. Abdul Wahab Abdul Kassim (Pengarah Penjara Kajang) & Ors [2020] 1 CLJ 82 states that it is well established that contempt of court can be classified into two distinct categories, that is civil or criminal. [37] In England, the general approach has been that a criminal contempt is an act which so threatens the administration of justice that requires punishment whereas by contrast, a civil contempt involves disobedience of a court order. However, O. 52 of the RHC is inapplicable for contempt in criminal proceedings where the contempt is in the face of the court or consists of disobedience to an order of the court or a breach of an undertaking to the court (see O. 52 r. 1(2)(a)(ii) of the RHC). One thing is clear, be it civil or criminal contempt, the standard of proof required in either type is the same, which is beyond reasonable doubt. S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [38] Contempt has been reclassified either as (1) a specific conduct of contempt for breach of a particular court order; or (2) a more general conduct for interfering with the due administration or the course of justice. This classification is better explained in the words of Sir Donaldson MR in Attorney-General v. Newspaper Publishing Plc, (supra) at p. 362: “Of greater assistance is the reclassification as (a) conduct which involves a breach, or assisting in the breach, of a court order; and (b) any other conduct which involves an interference with the due administration of justice, either in a particular case or, more generally, as a continuing process, the first category being a special form of the latter, such inference being a characteristic common to all contempts per Lord Diplock in Attorney-General v. Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 at 449.” (See Tan Sri Dato' (Dr) Rozali Ismail & Ors, supra) [39] The difference in classification between civil and criminal contempt was explained by this court in Uthayakumar by referring to Miller v. Miller, 652 SE 2d 754 - SC: Court of Appeals 2007, the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, and it would be apposite to quote the relevant passage from that decision, as it is highly persuasive and relevant to the issue at hand: “The determination of whether contempt is civil or criminal depends on the underlying purpose of the contempt ruling. In Floyd v. Floyd, we provided a comprehensive review of the differences between civil and criminal contempt: S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 The major factor in determining whether a contempt is civil or criminal is the purpose for which the power is exercised, including the nature of the relief and the purpose for which the sentence is imposed. The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce the defendant to do the thing required by the order for the benefit of the complainant. The primary purposes of criminal contempt are to preserve the court’s authority and to punish for disobedience of its orders. If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court.” [40] Equally importantly, this court went on to state that in civil contempt, the party complaining of the breach initiates contempt proceedings; whilst in criminal contempt, the court of its own motion frames the complaint against the alleged contemnor, or the Attorney General, or the party with sufficient interest in the subject matter, moves the court. [41] Following the approach of this court in Uthayakumar, we are of the view that the committal proceedings against the appellants are a civil action. A breach of the court orders is usually regarded as civil contempt. A criminal contempt is where the Public Prosecutor initiates the action or where the contempt is in the face of the Court, in the sense that the conduct in question interferes with the due administration of justice. (see Uthayakumar S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Ponnusamy v. Abdul Wahab Abdul Kassim & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 1333) [42] In light of the above, we are of the view that the application for contempt which is based on the alleged breach of the High Court Order dated 23.7.2020 is not a criminal contempt, merely because it arose from criminal proceedings. [43] We find that it is at best a complaint of civil contempt which is governed by O. 52 of the Rules of Court 2012. The mere fact that the contempt complained of emanates from a criminal proceeding does not, without more, make it a criminal contempt. Proceedings for contempt are separate and distinct from the proceedings as regards the main matter before the court, be it civil or criminal. If the contempt proceedings are initiated by an aggrieved or affected party against a party in breach to enforce the order, then, it would with limited exception, be inevitably a civil contempt and the proceedings are civil in nature. Thus, O. 52 of the Rules of Court 2012 is applicable. [44] Hence in our view, the appellants were correct in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and the Records of Appeal in accordance with Order 18 of the RCA 1994. CONCLUSION [45] For the above reasons, we are of the view that Enclosure 45 in Appeal S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 202 and Enclosure 39 in Appeal 203 for abridgement of time to file Petition of Appeal are therefore struck off. Each party is to bear their own cost. Consequently, we are directing the appeal records filed on 16.6.2021 to be used in Appeal 202 and Appeal 203. Dated: 18 December 2023 Signed HANIPAH BINTI FARIKULLAH Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Putrajaya Counsel/Solicitors: For the appellants : Shamsul Sulaiman, Khoo Guan Huat & Melissa Long Lai Messrs Shean Delamore & Co 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzan Kwong Hing No. 1, Leboh Ampang 50100 Kuala Lumpur For the respondent : Gurbachan Singh Messrs Bachan and Kartar No. 10, Medan Istana 1 Bandar Ipoh Raya 30000 Ipoh, Perak S/N X4ZaTtSM9EKEhWq1yMZ42g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-18-1101-08/2022

PEMPETISYEN MOHD MUSTAQIM BIN MURADI

Legal Profession Act 1976(LPA) - Application to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya - Sections 10-16 of the LPA - Whether the period of pupilege undergone by the Petitioner at a firm in Miri,Sarawak applicable for the purpose to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor in Peninsular Malaysia under sections 10 and 15 of the LPA.

21/12/2023

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9def2e32-0753-4590-8122-1ada739d3352&Inline=true

mum MAHKAMAH mace: MALAVA nu KLIALA wuvun mum wnuvm Panszxumm nun Luuwuk, muvsm (BANNGIAN KLIASA-KIIASA sous) vsnsvsu um‘ 5 zgugmunm uusux pssumasu Hg vscumcuu no. gm-ta-11a1~oI/2022 MCMD uusuam: um umum Dalam perkivi Morin Musnowl aw MURADI bermamal m ma us. Hukday Fmn JLN mu 2s Jaran Eaksm seam Mm. Sarawak Dan Dmzm pevkara Seksyervsekyen 10dun15 Am wovesm Undsrvq-Undana ms (Ana um Dln Daram penrsra Sakryensaksyarv vs Gen ca Akvz Prulesxm Undang-Undang ma (Aida «ea» ...r:m>:v|svzu Judqmont Introduction and Eankground Facts 1 The Palnlvoner Is a Makaysxan ciuzen rasndmg m M: Sarawak. He gradualed {mm the Mummedxa University‘ Mawaysxa wan LLB Honours He read m chumbers at one Mr Furdnus bm Marsmdu m Mnri (mm 2.5 2021 10 2.5.2022 and was subsequently admmed la me Sarawak Bar on 30.9.2022. Du! sun: 2 on 3 3 2022. lhe Femlanerfilad an appIicaliol1|o be admitted as an advocate and sullciior M Hie High Conn of Malaya at (he Kuaia Lumpur High Calm (Enclmuu 1) under Secilorl 15 at the Legal Profession Act 1975 (Lu; 3 Under Secllan 12 olme LPA. (he Petitioner is required rd undergo a pupillage as a pu in chambers for 9 mdntrrs from 35.2022 to 2.5.2023 (Pupillage Porlod) unless exempled for such period under Section 13 oi me LFA. 4 However, beiore such Pupillage Penod was oompleted me Felrirarlar filed ms Forms 61 7 and E on 30.1.2023 and am not opnrplete tne lequlsiie Pvpillage under the LPA 5 rrre Psililon was jointly oblecled Io by me Honourable Attorney General (As), the Bar Council and ine Kuala Lurnpvr Bar CommlItee(KLBC) on me ground |haI as of so 1.2o23tne Petitioner nee tailed lo serve tne presonoed penod di Puplllage undertrre LPA. 6 After tne healing, l allowed the preliminary uhjecllorls raised by the Honourable AG, lne Bar Council eno me KLEC with liberty to aPDiy and my lull grounds nowloilaw Cmlluntioll of Parties nu-lllleellons ior admission 7 seolron 11 or me LPA proyloes mat a qualified person may oe adrnined as an advocate and soirclkzr H’! lne High court oi Malaya it he satisfies. among others, [we oonoruorls Firstly‘ it he “has salislanorily served In Malaysia in: prescribed period dl puprllega lor duelrned person Secllorl i2(2)a1lhe LPA lurtrrer provides that lrre presmbed period oi puprllage snail he Nine rnonlrrs 3 Anaiher oonortron rs. lhal me Femlcner must serve his Period of puprllage wlih an advocate and solicitor who is and has been In aoilve Diaclloe in Malaysia lor a lotal period ol not less than seven years Immedlalaiy prededing in: one o1 oomrnenoernenl oi nis puprllage Tnrs is provided under section lam ofthe LPA. Fun mu 34. m we nelmon nahce, avnaam and eenmeaues referred «p m cm semn mu e. n ma «ms nraaumad by me Board (5) we pelmonar snau me Ms peumn at me Regmrars come at me Genital aegwy awumpamed by name. mwnalmg mat ne nes so pennmees sum nenees shafl be poem and mrmnue In be posted at aH me man Cauru iarlmaa munlhl perm me Dnlnhmens eennm Ind -nmfled u an advocaleand sahamuv‘ Based on the provisions‘ I! VS clearlhal H1 order 0: be admmsd as an advocate and souenm at me Hrgh cpun oi Ma\aya, a quahfied person mus! serve a pupmege penod of mne monms, unless exemption xsgranled Therefore. (he Pslmonar m this case ‘MU have m serve a period av rune months at pupnllage unless he 15 exempted (tom domg so under Seclmn 13 07 the LPA Purpen er pupllllgl :5 36 37. 38 Yhe Melaysan Ear nnmugn us Pmcueax sum to Pupmage and Adnussxan as an Advocates A sonenor m Maways-a slates that the objemve 0! the pupmage Is to euew Ihe pupu Io gam some anqualmanaa with me work ev an advacale and snhcnor befnre commencmg praclioe This vs because law graduales cmy aoqmred has: knowledge of subslanlrve and adyeclrvm Ilw wmle a cumpelem advocate and summer has a pracm;a\ werkmg krmwiedge pnnose pans 0! me law panvcmarly m searcmng!nrin1orrr\anonm order Ioanswerqueshons posed by the cuenvs The suhslanhal pan of in aavneene and senator also involves the drafting and aevoeeey skms wmcn requires me mu and exact knawxeuge of me law. Tnougn me pupvllage penod us msumcuent to save! all the skms, hawever. this pence can auow e pupwl to acquire some expenence or the Vaw in action‘ the relauunsmp bexwecn me sdvucale and senator and ms chem as wen as the re\aIIonsh\p mm other advocates and soncnovs The purpose cf pupillage can s\so be seen in me case av Edmoude (clnlmnnl) v. Lawson ac and mum [DIhndanLs) [mo] IRLR 1: - mun ceun. Guam‘: amen ulvmen (Eanmmm where n was new mm: m. 1: Mn 39. 40. A1 42 43 44 ‘The purpose or ovoiiiege I5 training ii is lor e fixed lenn, me oirori masrer is mqulvad to |ea:h nis dvoii Ind mcmeiiri tmmnlelnn oi ouoiiiage eniriier ine origin lo a lull pmcllsmg eerinoeio “ in lhllr case. tne Pemlonar tiled nis pellllon on 3.5 2022 Unless an exemption is given, me oeriod oi his ovoillage will be from 3 B 2022 to 2.5.2023 ii is to be noled lnai Sscllon 36(4) oi the LPA provides lnai «no period or ouprllege shall oomrrience on tlie dlls dune n ing dune petition reierred to in section 15(5) oi tlie LPA,i e. in tnis case 3 9 2022 it appears mat as oi lne Nllng date oi Fonri 6 on 301 2023. me Pemmnev has not ooiripieled lne ouoitlage period oi nine rnonilis as prescribed by section 1212) oi the LPA. No exemmiun had also been granted le him no snorlen nis piipillage oerrod rne Petitioners siiornission trial ine iemriai he nao served a Denod or one year of piioillage in Min lroiri 2 s,2o2i to 2.5.2022 complies min tne requirements or tne LPA cannot stand. Tnis is because. nrstiy the period oi ouoiiiage must I)! ma current pvoiiiege period, unless eoiemptiorr is given in lriis case, tne ovoiltege oenod is set to oommence liorri 3.0.2022 la 2 5 2023 Tnerelore, ne can only be eomined as an advocate end snllcilcr oi ine rtign covri oi Malaya aiter nine moritlis oi puplllage unless an exemption is given secondly. the Pellllanel ii admission to tne Sarawak Ear is siioieoi lo Sechclns A and 5 at me Sarawak Ordinance The requirements or me Sarawak ordinance vary vmrri Sectlun 13 oi the LPA larn onne view liia: ilie period otoupitlage sewed by me Pelrtioner in Sarawak under the purview oi e firm in Sarawak and Sarawak Advocates Ordinance I958 tchopter 110) is not applicable under tne LFA by virtue olsection 2 dune LPA. The oenod or piipillage under me LPA only commences from me dale ol tne filing 01 me oetilian (Form 1) as provided by seclion 36(4|o1lne LFA. The Pemlorler rreo never undergone any period oi ovoiliage In Peninsular Malaysl and under any firm and master In Peninsular Malaysia rnerevore, tnis covn views the lailure or me Pemiorrer to ivliill lrie olrier requirements as a material non-compliance. v... 11 0! n 45. ll ta to be noted that sectton 2 at lrte LPA has brought a law ttnplteattons, wnere trte provlslans under llte LPA do not apply to Sabah and Sarawak or tn eny pan of t: sacttan 2 ol the LPA provides mat all DNVVSIOHS, secndns and/or any pmaeedtngs under me LPA shall apply In ma wttola Malaysla exaepl tls aaplteallon lo Sabah and Sarawak. Up until one day no ntedtltcatton has been made by me Vang dl-Penuan Agortg: and the 07:19! [if any tn Sarawak) ts not pualtslted tn gazelled as required under Secliun 2 at me LPA 45 To ascenatn tne apphca at mts LPA as s1aIed tn saattan 2, tl ts perllrterll lo lock mu: (ha lrttenllon oflhe flraflartmough the Hansavd durlng me tahllng ohhis ltitl This LPA eante mic larce on 1 3.1977 vla [l=u(la) 327/19771 auer tz had reoetyed myal assent on 6 3.1975 and gazefled an 11.3 1976. 47. This LPA has repeated the ptevtaus Advut:a|es and sollcttars ordtnance 1947 whlch guvemad lna legal pralasatan tn Fentnsular Malaysta The llten Advncales and soltctlors ordtnanoe 1947 was enacted based on the Advocates and soltcilms Enac1menlcHQ4D at the Federaled Malay states The ten Ordinance also consoltdaled me ea ter diflerenl enactments lot the Federaled Malay states. one sluatts settlements and Jonore. 48. The blll nas been tabled on 13.121975 From me Hansavdt trte drafter at me blll ltad rrtentloned as follows tn regard to tls aaaltcabtltty on page 9534 ‘Though INS sttl. tn prmctple ts apphcable lhmughnut Malaysia, tn wacllue tt could only be mad. apnltcaun to Sabah and Samwxk wttn men mudlflclllunl as me Vang drPemAan Agang may by order ntaxe ' [See Hansud (Mnlnysia Furhahasan nmnn Rlkyat, Blcnn Kan Kedua dun Kotlqa Rang unaang-undang Ptomlon Undlnl-Undnng. II.12.Ifi7§, plul 9334)] 49. However. pnor to the labhng oi tms bill an 18 12 ‘9751 «ms lztll was debated during |he Iabhng ol me Rang Urtdang-Undzng Peguambela (Ptndaan) on 17.7.1975 The questton was posed by the Dr Tan Chee Khoen as lellows -ntran Ghee Khoon va say: handak menmen cortmh sanata sebah tne nodal: naya one taatsuattan New t wnmlo bring lo tne anantlon ol tna Mlnlflsr wrty srtauld the tawyeta ma lute. regIstrallLmi—cne tn u... 1: 17! ll Femnsmar MaIayaIa, one I1 sanan and one In Sll!W2k<wYI\C7I means In. lawyam In Sauwik clnnm pIac1InIn sanan and vme vaun. Ihe Vawyers In Sememanpung InaIayaIa cannot pnacnse WI Satan and ma vans. orcaNIu|pm:1IseIrI Snmwsk and mu vars: Now. I mpeme Honourable »IInIsIar er my and AIImn.y.eaneIaI can hung (cm a a.II wheteby all lha lawynrs are regwerefl under one rEgv:1la|IDn.V'mIch mam: Iiztycin In... gram. anwmera In Mi\nySIi—dwu mam nm a IIIaIaysIe were evw/Body has sqIIaI ngnus New lney do ml have equal nuns wny aIm..Ia In. liwyms be smglsd out Im Mn aIaonInInaI.on. fnvexavnm-7 Ada bsberipa mng pequam yang nenaak mevqallnkan pekanaan memhukzi sylrlkal III Kola Kmabem umpamanya nnnak. Imak dibunirkan Seanu ma. .4. pegulm dad Sensenaruulug Malaysia yang henflak membuka :yanKa|dI Kucmnn alau SIbu (MIDI mlk munanan Auu an: sum in III um ylng Inn. orang dIsam berkahandakkan semng peguam aan um. paguam dlllm Iman bench perm ke sans unluk nwwak\lI utang a. sana Nnw (ms IS wnm n we have mu rvwmvaborv lor aII mm me same ru|as—alrvfl we can chmga ma rules a Hllle (0 “I We sandman; In Sabah and SiIIwIk—\hen I an M1! see my Insulmuuflllblv ImoI.nI. men an, aIImIIgI. I knaw very mils oa raw, |he negIsII.amn m aIegaIpraI:1nIonsrIs nel mum ammm «mm Inam. m3¢rcI\prac1manlV. In ol1ac\,l\1IIrIkme IagIsIIaIIon Ma medI:a\ plactnnonsv poses Var more promems because [he memes! praclallonevs, as o1I\ow.me(mInefl ll places aa Iam Ina Umted Stale: ollvnenca. Canada and many park oIImIa mamas the lawyers are m| scsfltved no (arahmad They are ewhevfram [he lnnsal Gown In London nrfmm Nlw z.aI.na Aullnlm and new Smwivan I submll InaI In any IeaIsI.aInn I| I5 (I15 quamauon maI maflers The scnmnym Ina qII.IIIIcaIIuns 01 lawyers am: am pm: .. runny pmuIanIa as II.aI M meduai prazmlbuners and I do have mm Ina M mar :71 Law wIII aIuayInIs problem mm sezlhuull lhc Iawym In Malaysm. and In.I Indudsi 5abah and Simwak. can be bfD|lqH| Underarm regxsllabun The am delad InaI I see In W5 menemem .InenaInenI Ia lius. Mr Sveakar sn II who owns UrIIveIsIly Msmulvmu New (M InInIaIaIaI Law knows max by max! ysav. me am balm OI lawyers Mllaame mIIInanI we I=.wIIy o1Luw. Umvenlly B’ M: yl We now renogmse In. LL a aI Ina Umverslty ul5IrIaapore.bmvmI1L71ma LL s Irfuwawn unIversflV’ Yms Ia wnsrsnlwe have one rEQIs|mInr\ II mm no| pose any pvcblem So I was InaI Ina MIms1er of Lnw IMH bring an amundmenl to me regmranon cl Iarwyen In mcmde Vawyers lvom all pans DI Malaylla -nu Wlhfl I. mt Wlllblu wvlhm ms lameubh iulum. Inan n. nIII.I bk Inm oonsndevalmn lh.I| me L L B. sludanh hum me Umversay of Malaya mu glldulle nan yeav am In nmm . years um mar In.I, Inay wHl be called In me Ear here and II my mouse In 90 In Sabah or Sarawak, why shwld we my Inem me mane. at pvamsmg In muse yam (See. I-Ianmu (Malays: Pubuhlaan Dswan Rakyzl. Bacaan Kall Kodun dun Kong. Rang Ulldlngvufldlllg PagunnI|nIa ( d:an)17.7.1975. pago sII1u.5saIm a... 1:411 50. In remy (0 mi: qussmny the men Mmrslsr of Law and Attorney Genanax, Tan sn Ahdul Kadir hm vusm, on pages 5635 m ssaa s(a\ed as follows. "Yln an Abdul xaau bin yum. Tuan Yang amnu. uya ma manerzngkan G1 51 1 uilu sarnua «arm bahawa saya Mall kemukalrzvv Rmg Undang-undanu nu ma bscaan Ran yang panama am. ma an. a navy Mwuzles and Sahcllnn Ommanuu an: yanu taaax sudnh mnacaun pnda Iran yang panama a. Dewar: IVII dan akan dmzwz aan mbannngkln -an. dmlhn aamn rmsyulral yang sun 6- na Semua Ahlw Yang Eemmmzl tahu saya namp ampan hm: mmgu lag: a-pa: maflaman mm Arman. Vang Enmurmm aw man. Iemlndunq an nauanmya an nu .anan kenakena yang sauama mg: lahun namanya Pevxaluan Lawyanuawya damn Mataym wn. manann bananas‘ aammcang dan mewgulm Undlnq-undaml sm sehnax Pafiulm Megan man aanagammuar nm—«e«ua uhaa Ielapt mzk zda kuasa and: an Councfl Max: dangan «am I|u. Mam... Umarug-undzng max suka namnur Iznwn bemenaan can-cara Ba! Cauncfl nu mlnjalankan pnnassanny. rzmksn say: bevcakap dalam bahasa unggans (Dervgan mm) Nlmugn : am the lxlular head ohhe Bur u give an me Ymsdom In ma Bar Cannon at M ysll In 67:01 (Mu own am In gnvam mar annaamn and Iorfly gwe (hurl ama some 0! me Hemumme Members an (ms Home In memben oi the Bur Cmmcll Ind man or what Vs mg on Ind 12.. am n below: xhvs Home 1nd .1 may a. unnamed M Mr at me next meemng so, an mass makers wmch have been brought up wrH uafly aa IuHy anbnina n nn. cormng maenng erPnr1:amnn1.hm ma aw name us Ivw \s a smzn zmendmem )us| to run what 15 ea: me am. aana Vscxvno m samn and n was umaa mnny mm ay lhn ma- there and ma Vawyers men to bnnq (ms amammem m 015 Home As veglrdl what Yang Eemammt nan. «apana sad as: now- uniununaluly na rs ml he¢e—hm : would say Ims NB 5 aware am pmlznfls nm to be iwala :31 new saaan ana Sarawak jomod Makaysla hanausa mm n in Aqnamenl ana men an ovum um-mun: hum our Deowe [mm here gumg mere We know Saban and Sarawak‘ compared to Penmsulzv Malay:/u are M1 u. aflvanood and WI da not mama them for looking avmr\hcmlsn?51s at may people me and as mm (mm a n. that Agreement mat our mp». cannot go mere In undue lw axanpxa as . mfimbur a! the Bar o( as 2 Vnvtyer wnmm mew oammn and vmmwurahon Vs sun In their names, you rannm en|er saaan nnd Sirzwlk wnhuul than Inpmvxl Far ma Muon na sumesbnn In have em Iegwslrahun ioran ma Vawycrs an own! Maayaa MU not anng aaaan Ind Snvawak naanrto us but wIl\ mm Snhxh ana Sarawak runner away became my may say ms .a . axaa lmm (mas wen devnlopod Flmnsulal Mamysmn peomaw pLwrmere—4\ke nee: Ia gmmr honny «nun may sma. Sn Huavu been ma many! :5 and we w||\ do so man (nu ma nghl when may say they agree In open Ihenrdocu Ind may Iwme Ihalwa should nun em Smlurlhl main or File is M n 51 Mala u, mm wewm do 1 up an I which I am uolnn to Imnqto mls Non lnr mm. In mummy mu only as lpplleuhlu to Wu! Malaysia but mm vs : ipoclal vmvvis n no uxund to Sarawak Ind Subaru on common «nu ma nu-win of sanan, an pmpln cl Sarawak um m-mbm vflhc Burofs Ihmd mnnban nun. Bar ol sumlk mm to man; um. um wlll dn n. The Fadera\Govemm:n1 wm nu| dc .ny1n.ng w orlenu In mm m an whllnvur A u animal In: mluesls al Sahah and Sarawak As regards xne Ismlrks made by me Nunourzma M-mberlur Miran ms! now when he ma n: and not was to many things mntawvsd m here, to wnm. u do nm agriu a|aYl. he must nave gone, w Speakev, Ilvuugh ms pusegraauaxe course and me 5.; mumns Chambers ennui ne uyi « Vs nu pm and he ‘s nu| utlsfivd am n‘ M nas gune lhmugh mess vomit: and ne nas rm gene IN-mgh any um-r murw than ma Nomumbll Mnmher u no good as a Ilwyer‘ w he ‘s one He snuma ya for lurmermmu ahmad He wants m exxena Yarexamnle remmg m nna Chzmbavs ham 5»: manlns us more, u Vs not the nunumavmmnns Mr5peal<er—buknn baron: butan—ma( mailers you may pm a man .n ma cnamun fw muse years am he my be 3 -aw Iawyar snu n miy bu lhru momhs bm « my much“ by ewerisnced Vawyers and n he went grvcn cvery chance in go |o cne cm mu M Nmuwloakme now. an. nnm rmnlh mm. ueamng in nne Chambevs u beikr than was years So. u ‘s not the number 01 mnnlhs ans reads \n ma Chamnals nu ma amount 0! wank gwen In a may quamea mm by me some: vawyers to do and me ammml cl |ea:hmg gwen |o mm and a\so how much we person ounoemsd appnas nmaww ruldwvn m m. Chamber: man mum Ind rm «n. numbav or months one spends raadmg .n ma Chambers man 1; all wuwan. man Vang ax-Perms‘ yang aapaw ma lamb’ (emphas-s added) wun une passmg 01 ms rain, LFA was Inlmduced. Sscflons 1 and 2 ohm LPA read as «wows- “semen u. Shun Tm: nu wmmunummt m ms Au may be mad as me Legal Pmlssbn M11876 (27 The Mmnsler may .Ipp-mm dnferenl dates rm me cnrmng m|o opsratlvn at me dwemnl pan: or vmvmnru at mu an ma drflaraul Hun mly In Ippulmed nx me mmmg mu operamn ur nn.s Au m Pemnsuhr mum», smn and Sarawak Sictlnn 2. Apnllcmion ms M1 snau apwymmughom M:\ays4a um she“ only be made apphcable In sum. and Samwnk mm Inch rvmdmu|\onI u an Vang d:~FeIIuan Agnng may by umav make’ and such nnier shall nu nubhshed m me Gazelle ' »...mm 52. 53 55 The appnoabrmy cl one we can be seen in the case 01 Daluk NJ Mohnmmnd nmu bln Mahmud 5 Ors y new my check sn [zoom 1 MLRA 502; [2009] 4 cu 442: [wow] 4 ML] Ias where zakr Azlw c.I (as be men was)s1aIed as (allows ‘[491 neweyer, rr rs semeenr re say me: x 2 av me we see maku n erear me we snau amy be made apphcame re Sabah ana S.Ir-wxk N were rr a nreerneanen enser by me Yang Penman Agnng re mar Ellen There rs no wch nmer mar has been made orpubhshzd m rne sauna, mu: 1 35 bune LPA cannol Ipplym saban ana Sarawak seeben 2 Apnmnen rnn Acl anew epary lhrouglwul Mamyim bu| snau only be made aup\II:a|7\e to Sahara and Samwzk wnh such nreerneerrbns u rne Vnng amneen Agung may by user nraxe, and such Order even be aubnenea m we Gazelle‘ Based en me above-menhoned aurhonnes and based an we mention of the Paniarnent, n is my vrew man we LPA rs nol made applxcabls to saban and Sarawak. Hence, the Pemloner cannot use ms Dennd :11 pupmege m serewakr undev Sarawak Advocates Ordinance to be admined as an aayacare and sohcrlav under one LFA me P ner relerred lo me ease olSaman|ha Munrn (supra) and sunil 5 9!’: (supra) m order to proceed mb ms pem n wmmut appwlng any exernprren «rem me Bar Council Huwavar‘ rn sarnanme Mumrx tsupra), me rssue rarsed was on me were of Ma\ays\a m semen 13 up of me LPA The aux 01 me wnole Issue was wnerner Mr Raddy who pranreea m serawak was an aavecece a sohcllorwlm was or had been m aclwe prachoe rn Ma\ays\a wrmrn me meamng of secuon (3 1:) 01 me LPAr seen lhal he eeum nave been a rneerer pupfl mlendlng ro be earnrnea to the Mmayan ear. The Federal Conn anewea me appear and he\d that me word Meraysra used m seeuon r3 (1) of me LPA must be construed to rneluae any pan of Maraysie Mr Raddy has been Vn aenve pracnce In Sarawak which is pan oVMa\ays\a. ll rnesrbe snressea maune rseue m Slmlnlhl Murlhl (supva) was on sec'uon13(1)oHha LPA, wnrle In lms present case‘ me objecnon rs on me period of puprnage under semen 12 0! me LPAas well as seenon 13 (3; enne LPA. Tne rssee arseussed rn semanmn ulunm (supra) was me <5sue 0! whether Mr Raddy who praensea In me n 0? n 56. 57 55 59 so sarawax was an advocate &sDIiclIorwha was or had been in aclive aractrce tn Malaysra wl|htrl the rneanlng alsactlon 13 (l l M the LPA lt dld not drscuss whether the penod spent by Samantha Munhi (supra) rn Mr Reddys chanrbers should be ctrunted The Federal Courl only allowed the appeal, and thrs petrtron was rentrtted to the Hrgh court lat ltrrther oonsrdetation. It rs clear that Samantha Mtrnhrs lsunral admlsstan as an advocate and sallcrtarcl the Htgh caurt ot Malaya rs not aulontatrc rl solely based an the Federal courts decrston Further‘ the lact that Slmlnml Muflhl (supra) had started his otrolllage (or seven ntorrths at Mt. vrrandrans chambers tn Kuala l.trrtrptrr. should be drstrngurshed lronr the latex at thls current case ln thrt rnatant case, the Pellllorlsrdld not startover hrs puprllage wtlh any law hrrn tn Penrnsular Malaysra but had rnsrsted on trsrng the l2 months psrrod ctpuprllage ln sarawalt. There was also no evtdence |c show that he had started aver ms puplllage wrth any master who had a ltrrn tn Peninsular Mataysra The case M sunll singh (supra) 100‘ rrnust be drstrngurshed alnca the rssue lrlvolved was also tn regard to sectlon l3 (1) of the LFA and not under sectron 13 (3) at the LPA The tssue lnvolved the perrod ol puptllage served wrth the master punrl tn Labuan and whether the puprl master rs an advocate and solratarwhc rs and has been tn acltve aractrse In Malaysra srneel Labtran ls under Federal Terrrtorres. not under sabah or Sarawak, the governrng Ad will be the LPA. Agarrt, the «acts rn strnll Slngh (supra) concerned the yalrdrty otthe auorl rnasterr whlch have been correctly decrded byllle oourt. In fact, ln strrrll slngh (supra). afle( he had oractreed rn srngapore lot appmxlmalaly lg ntonths. he then started over hrs charnoenng wl|h Mr George Pathnranatha tn the Federal Territory or Labuan. hence, thrs court agrees wllrl the B3! councrrs oorecttorr, and l| rs vtbrarll that the exemption under secltan 13 t11 the LPA is not autonratrc subsection 3 clearly atotrrdes that an appllcatlcn shall be nrade tor any exernotron. Even m the case nl sunll Slrtgh (supn), he also applled car an exemption and was granted one and a half ntonttts sttortenrrtg of hrs parted ol puorllage by carlstderlrtg hrs exoerrenae tn Slrtgapore nu II M n 61 In tact, tn potrt ovtnese Mo cases, the Pettttoner had started over then puptuage wttrt anomet maslev at artmner nrnt tn Pentnsutar Mataysta and Lahuan, wtttte tn thts eurtentease, the Pettttoner seeks to use ms 12 months penod oi puptllage tn Sarawak wtttt the same master. 62 Desptte hemg an advocate and s ' tor vflhe t-ttgrt court at Sahah and Sarawak, the t=ettttener's adrntsston as an advocate and sottottor 0! the ntgn ceun at Metaya ts not aulomahc, but eubteot to the exempttan under Section 13(3) ovtrte LPA. sectton 13(3| ot the LPA gwes tne eote atscretton to the Bar counctt to exempt a ouatrnett nerson trorn any pertod on up to etx months puptttege upon appttcatton made to t supportett by satistectory evidence As there ts no exemphun gtven to the Pemioner, he needs to tumtt the ntne months penod of pupittege as stated unoer seouons ttmtd) ene 12(2) or the LPA. ea Baud on the case at Eamonue (mum) and the ptacuottt gutae issued by the Mataysten Ber, tt IS apparent that tne purpose 0! the puotttage ts to ttatn puptts wI|h the expertencett lawyev as to the teeutteo skvlls lur a eenatn penoo at ttrne, oetete they can be allowed In practice on thetr awn tea the Fetmonefs petttton to be exempted ttont urtdergotng puotttage at an. ts not tn ttne wtth the purpose otpuptuage. This ts because the expsrlenoe or bemg a puptt under the Supervlslon ota master and at e nrrn tn Pentnsuter Meteyste will oe etttetettt as campaled to uneetgeing it tn Sarawak It cannot be denied tnat there ts a dtflerenue between the tent tn Pentnsutar Mataysta and Sarawak Afler an, as the Fetittener ls pettttontng to be admilled as an advocate amt sattcttot or the Htgh court or Mataya, he will be state to aepteotete the practical stoe at the taw more tt he otd nts ouptttage tn Pentneetet Malaysia conetuetan 65. Havtng perusett the cause papete and relevant au|hMIlIest tt ts thts Conn s vtew that the Pettttener cannot use ms 12 months penoo or puptuage tn saramk to be admllled as an advot:a|e and sottettor et tne t-ttgn coun at Malaya. vueunln 57 as as II must be stressed man Secuons 11|1)1d)and 12(2) of me LPA pmwde lhal a pupn mus| serve a plescnbed penod oi puplllage at me months «a qualify «or adrmsswon Furlhar, Sacfion 36(4) a! ma LPA supulanes that me permd of pupmage shaH commence on the date ov me Why ev me pelmon revenea to m Section 15(5) of me LPA Hence, ma Psimonefs period of pupmaga a In sum «mm 3.e. 2022 mm 2.5 2023 The Femvonafs oonlenlmn (ha| he had vumlled seeuona 12 and 13 at lhs LPA mrthe purpose of bemg admmed as an advocate and solnamrollhe Hugh counol Ma\aya. cannot be sus|ained as secuon 2 bars the appl-ubmuy oflms LPA |n Sarawak. Tnereiore, ms 12 manms penod of pupmage m Sarawak cannnl be counted «er ma purpose of adrmssmn under me LPA Hence‘ me prehmmary ubleclxons by me Honourable AG‘ Ear Councvl and ma KLBC must be alluwad, smce «ma us a public Interest case. I make no order as to costs. Dated. at /vv/\ Ahmad Kamal mu Md. Shahld Judge mgn com Kuala Lumpur December 2023 vuaxuavn 9 As to 0115, me pemroher has ma1hoa.nea1ha1 he has sansfied nhe oohumohs shes he had served 12 months of pupmage cram 2 8.2021 to 2.3.2022 under hvs master, Mr. Ftrdaus hm Mar:mdi1an ad»/scale and SOHCHDV who IS In acnve practme Vn Sarawak The Feuuoner also submitted Khal his masher was admllled as an Idvocate and sohcutor ahhe H1gh Court 01 Malaya on 30 11 200! 111 The Peuuanev submmed that he had served me prescnbed pupnllage pulod under a master who Is In aclwe practice 1n Malaysll. To Auppurl his argument. he veferrud to M. Slmlntfll Munhi v. The Altomay-Gonnnl A ors [19432] 1 MLRA91; [1922] 2 ML! :23; mm cu (Rap) 21: and Mauls Fugunm v. Sunll Slngh am [21102] 2 MLRA 411; (212041 3 cm 15. Mmnrial Contradiction in Form: 1, s and the Curlifiulu cl Dllluouco 11. The KLEC via enclosure :2 on page 5. suhmmed mar mere were material con(rad1c|ions uh the Pemmhers caused papers which caused «ms pecmoh m be devectwe am «am KLBC pmrrved am that me phrase ”sekarang mr 1n paragraph 5 olFum1 1 much was mea on 3.2 2023 1rr1p11ed that he currehny undergoing his chamuermg, wmch he and not 12, The KLEC hmher subrruuea that by vmue or sechohs 1212) and 36(4) ov the LPA, the Pehhohers period o1 pumllage wm be (or 9 mahms s|arl1nglrumlhe dale armrng oi Form 1 on a.a.2o22 KLEC by rararnhg to paagraph 6 0! Farm 6 and paragraph 2 ol the oemflcale oldihgenoe submilted man the date at oommenoemen| at pup1Hagem bum Mmese dm:umen|s wasvmm 2 a 2021 lo 2.e 2022. wmch maler1aHy oon\rad1c(ed Farm 1 KLBC clam-ea mac nhe Pelihoner a| aH matena1 umes am nnm1eanyamaav111o ameha such a mvslska. 13 The Fammnar also submmsd that me dilsvls m Farm 3 and Farm 9 (Enclosure 6) at ms pemioh are aocumle, He explained that paragraph 6 cl Form 6 wh1ch sets out the devaus that he had chambered ex Mr Fvdaus bun Mmmm vrnrn 2 a 2021 m 25.202213 accuuate. He runher exmarned that he had wmmunncated Ins Inlenhon to use hIs12-months perma of pupulage uh Sarawak vonhe purpose or this paumoh was .1 was firs! filed lo the Bar COWVCH. Page! :24 u Counsel: Fm (ha Pelmoner. For me Hnnourame Allorney Genera! For me Ear Oouncll For me Kuala Lumpur Bar Commdlea m Watson Lot 115, Holiday Park‘ .)a\an Am 23. Jalan Bakam. sauce Mm. Sarawak Enclk Nlk Mona Nnor hm Nxk Kar Samar Fedevm Counsal Jabalan Peguam Negara Cawangan wuayan Persekuluan Kua\a Lumpur, U Guaman Tmgkal 5. Wnsma Case Pemana. on Ja\an Semanlan‘ Dsmansara Helgma. 50512 Kuala Lumpur. En. Farez Mohd An Jinnah Tsluln Fire: Jinnah Peguambexa dan Peguamcara A-11-D5. Plaza Taragan Ke\ana, No 3‘ Jalan 55 3/6. 47301 Ke\ana Jaye, Se\angor Darul Ehsan. En Weera Fremananda Teluan Ahmad Denial‘ Ruben & Co. Peguambela dan Peguamcam c:—2~wo, cs-2-11, C34-12, sowans Dutamas‘ Jalan mamas 1. 50430 Ku|\a Lumpuv m. )1 M11 14 Hence, he submmed man [here is no rnala nae an the pan at him to aeoewe any [names The Pemioner alsu sla|ed thal the delaxls as In ms master H1 Form 6 are also acwrals smoe his master was admmed as an advocate and solicitor of “In High Court of Malaya m |Il18 Wlm me nnlemrelanan underseclvon 3 of lhe LPA supported with exhnbfls 23 and 29 oi (he nohoe av otuechon The period ed puplllnge cannot be urvod remmely 15 The mac subrmlled than at aH material limes‘ me Pelmcner had anegemy undergone ms pupmage al Messrs Fwdaus 5 Company wmch us lncaled cmsxde Peninsular Makaysxa By wuue ovsecnion 2 ov me LPA‘ Sabah and Sarawak are not Included m me definillon of Malaysia under me LFA Hence. me an 0! me Palmaner allegedly undergoing ms pupmage rernolely m Sarawak was an indicator that ne had nevev commenced any pupmage under me LPA. Olorlcal mar 15 The KLBC argued me! such nusvakas made by the Pemxoner are not merlly clencal arvurs bui subslanlm delects that mus! be covracled The Bar Councfl made me same omecnan and contended lhat me ems oammmea by the Felmoner went |owards me suhsvznlwve upsets of Secllon 36(1) of the LPA, In which II had aflacled ma Pemmnews date of oommenoemerd of me pupmage Rlquinmom under section 36(4) ohm LPA 17 13 The Pelmoner submmed max «he period cf pupmage under sscuon 3614) 0! me LPA Is only applicable M me appficauon var snan can under Section 36(2) of lhe LPA and mi Var long can as long call us governed unaersecnons 12(2) and 13u)oHhe LPA The Femianav lunne: suhmmed that thus mane! was supported m one case of snmanma Munni (supra) when me Federal coun had v... 4 ms allowed me admlssion ol the Palllloner desplle lne pemlan belng mes after me and cl lne I2-months puprllage pence: m sammk. Hence. ne clalmed lnal Socilcn 36(4)ol\hs LPA has no appllcablllly ln mus peiillon lg Tne Bar ceunell ln ms iubmlssiorls-ln-reply naa slaled sacupn as onhe LPA does no: merely address a pupll masler‘s appllcallcrl lo: a pupll we have Ilmlled ngnls ollne audlenoe but also covers nlaners such as parsons defined Is an ‘urlaulilonsad person’ The Ear Councll lurlner submmed. the scan pllne puplllpge lhalwould lead to me apuon ol pupll master maklng an appllcallon under Sechan 35(2) ol me LPA Ounfldcn II rlporl undu socllon 1442) Mm. LPA 20. The Paulioner plsn contended lnal lhe cpulses conducted by me Ear cpuncll are no! a necessary oondmon under me LPA to be admlued as an advucala arm solitlwr as the wwer to admlt any person as an advocale and spllcnpr ls a fllscrellon ollne coun ln llne wun Secllon 10 of me LPA 21 The Fellhorlerl M lsuly |c |he pame$' argumenl whlch med up read me requlrement la altend me courses together wlln Secllon 14 or me LPA. nsa stated lJIalSec1lon 14 up not menlmn any requlremerll lo allsna me couvses, pm only pmvldes In regard lp lflqulnes as |o me Pelmeners charaaer. Tna Pelmnner stands that such lnqulnes were Mfilled when he submltled two names pl me referees lor lne purpose pl ma elhlcs report. 22 I! was slated than me duly lomlfill lne requlremenl under Secllon 1A pl ma LPA m oorlduchng inqulrlas IS under me Bar Council and KLBC He also suhmmedlhannecase omlalaysisn Barv. Mulnng Tagnl [1934] 1 IIILRA aov; mas} l M|.| 231 had stunned the pasmsn UV Slmlnlhn Munhl (supra) lpr lne purpose el belng aamined as an sdvocale and sollcltof pl Hlgh Calm Malaya 23 we KLBC m nls submlsslons-ln-reply (Enclosure :2) on page 11 had submlllsd man VI IS lmposslble to nmduoe a oanfidenllal repon under secllen 14(2) allhe LPA due |o me lallure pl lhe Pelltlcner m gwlng cooper-allan ln lhem. KLEC explamea mac secuon mm at me LPA had vesled lne KLBC to ccrlduc1 an lnqulry as to lne w... s am chamcler 0! any Pecmoner |o be adrmued as an advocate and sohcnlor cl Hrgh Conn Mmaya and to produce a confidential reporl as to me resun ov irrqmnas. 24 However. the Pemoneroz au malena\ mes had «am to auana the inlroducmry session and vaoemaoe sassron organized by the Bar Council as weH as In fill [ha pamcmars oi the Peuhcner form and referee lorm ma had caused me mabrmy on me part uf me KLBC In assess me characlev of me Pemuaner m ensurmg lhal he is mmpauble la he admmed as an advocate and sohcxlor and to get confirmauon as In his goad standing (mm |he rsfereevs. 25. The Honourable AG look me same svano and opposed |o me PsNwner‘s applroacrorr The reasons gwen by 01: Honourabwe A5 are simuar «o those given by others. Issues 25 Thus. me Issue In tmscase rs whether «he Pelilionerwflo had served I2 months of pupmage In Mm Sarawak under his maslen Mr. Flrdaus bin Morshidl can use the period 01 puvwage (0 be edmillad to as an advuca\e and summer Mme High coun oi Malaya. ‘rho decision ohm court 27, The prowsuons In relaoon lo the aomrssron of advocates and smiacors are ommoea unosvsecnons 10 lo 15 ohhe LPA. seamen 10 ollhe LPA prowdzs lorme admissmn afadvocales ano sorrcrws Trus secmon reads as Follows “Io. Admulion anumam Ind Inllclloru tr. mun Dom may n ms dwcrlhun Ind -un,ecr no mo Act mum in an advomme and sohcnor ohhe Hugh own - 13) any mnmeo vsnunr and «or any anided derkvmo has combined wllh Sechnn 25 Ian s M n za, Provnded mm no person mm \s a umhfied parwn by vaascn :11 ms having Dance In: Hnal exnmmwon for um «um orolheraunvmcnlmn much mm mm a quamed man umiur paramp» u). an nr 4:) at ma dsfinnuzn of ‘qunfied panorv m sscflon 3 shall be mmmoa an an advocate and salnnuzr mom ma dugrea or other quahfmalmn nu bun wnlaned wan mm‘ Furlher, semen 11 a! me LPA pmwaes «or me qualvficahon at Idmuswan |o the Bar under me LFA. This pmvusion as 6oHows' -11. uunlmcnmnnl aauamunan n m Sums: Co seam to, a quawm.-an pusm may be adnullsd is an Idvoals and 5ohcnlur a nu- ; rm ammaa me an nvawmn n yum, my vs Manna cmamr, and 1») has m| been mnwcled m Ma\ays\a m elsewhere at a mmmx mam u wuuld under lam mm: I: be a member a! ma pvolsssmn, and m pamculir am rm Ilrmled no, an enema ulvmvmg naua urdlshomshn my has not been aammmnaa bankrum and has not been mm gmlly an anyof me An: nrulmnlans rnurmoned m paragraph 33(5)!-L 1D).1C)‘(e).(0‘(NMk}0<(|)l‘I1|h9 Bank-uvt-:1 Ad 1967 [Ad 3601. mm has mu dune .my mum acl man w being a bnnisler orsclsotor m Enghnd. wmfld random mm H-bl: In as mshatvlu, mad1.ax.r..a orauapenaea lmm pramce. er an M: um am. or u no! Viable Ia be‘ ishlrvad ammumaa or wsnenaea \n ma mpsmy as a legal pmihuxwer 11 any olher muvIh'Y m .s arms! 5 mm: cmun are permanem «amen: M Mlmyxm, m; bu Inllndonly scnnd In Mlliynla ma pnslzflhed pulad M puamaao for szuuinaa pmans. (2; A: how the v Junuary «sea, naqunlflid gum man an admmbd as an advocate anu samorunnss. n aaamn to aaustymg ma reqmremsnts av subsanuon (n. he has passes or 5 exemmed lmm ma sanaaa Manaysa Quamymg Exammamn" (emphasis aadedh mu 29 30 31 The nrescnbed penod M pupmage is pmvvdsd under secman 12 ov me LPA which Vs stated as cauows. ~12. Period of vunllllgn nfquallllod person v2 (1) For me uumnses al W3 Part. a nuahfied person snau dunng ms penod ul pupmsga be known as . ‘auptfl am . pariah mun men. a pm nrvei ms wnwd er Wuwlmga many parunerem shafl be knuwn as a -.nas4er :2» A quamea versnn shafl. balms he \s zdmmed as an advmale and Iohckun saw: u mm cl vuulhgl and -nape: w an. Ilnn Ind mnon 1:, tin wucribod panodofvuplllaue sun: as mm month!‘ (3) No quaumso person shaH mlmur um Ipec\a¥ leave m wnlmg arms as: Canned. hold any nmca or engage m any empluymant uf any mm. mmnmuu.mne av mhetwsa‘ aunna m Dlnnd ev uuvluwl nmnauung In Ims suhsecnan mu preclude 5 won! awn reoenmg remuneration Irom ms malllr temphasvs added) Seclvon 13 M the LPA pnmds (or exempuan (mm penod and qualmcahon Vor pupmege Subsecnons (1) and (2; of seeuan 1: mad pmwsluns perlaxnmg to the maner, as laflawsz ~15. Exummwn vmn mac and qunumuan m pupllllyn m Subpcl Io summon up a cum sn.u sews mu puma av pupmage Mlh an advocala and smnalar mm .s .na ha: bun -n achve ammo: m Mala)/Sxa (er a max psnod av nm Less Ihan seven year: .n.mea-my preoedmg nn. am oleommenoemem ems pumlllwn Fmvwdad ms: «nu Bar Cmmml may an xvacul groundl snow . vupwl lo serve ms psm ul pmvHage wllh an adwcata and sohcwlor of Wes: man seven years‘ slsmmg 12; the Ear Comm! may aHow a quaamea person m servedw6even| am 0! mi Danod M vumll-gs mm dmsmnl mailnn suhsecnan (3; 01Se:.1ion 13 of me LPA pvowdes were a peimoner wuld he exempuea from period and qualificanon for pupmsge. The Bar Cuuncfl may. In M sole dxscmlwon, exempt I qualified person from any period up to six mumns' pupmege upnn anphcaman made In n supvorled by samslactnry evidence. Sermon 13(3) and (4) oflhe LPA provxdas lhal. nxelcul 32. ~13. Exnmpfiorl mm pvllod and qualficmian corpunmagu va /3; rm an Council an n an ink uumuon, -umpn . qullrfiad pmnn mm Ivvy puma up no 3' monltu’ puplllaue upon pppuman maup n -uppomn hyl Inlxlwy wldlnu m-»— mmm In Ipecm umumllances nmmng . shnmlmng M Ina penod p4 Wbmfla‘ W In» In: lFD‘i|;1lII us can Mnod ulnul ‘:55 man m mnmlu u n . pupl or read m me chambers pa 2 baa! pmmmer m amue pmu puma, m (M Commonwllflh, or more man aeven warn flandmg‘ 0! my me awhcanl u an amcled clerk m Malayan or manna appncanx has men mpagpa m mm vmnicn 9 . lag-I wzicmuunu by whatever name cam m any can ov me Oummunwlahh iori pemd mm up Inn 11): munlhs (4) A uunmiod person Wm has mm m lhu Jud-clal and Lean! Semce lot at Vaasl one yezv mu be aemmsfl «mm rervmn any nenpa cl Whmage pmmea M1 appucamn lur admissmn as an advucale and wncuov ws sunporhd by . cumficzre won. me Almmay Gcnarxl to ma mm mm he \s a m and pmperpelsan In be admmed as an advucale am smmm“ (Bmpnasxs added) secnon 14 at the LPA lunhar supmaxes (ha prowsmn (or fimng of aarmssmn palms": and enqumes as loflaws ~14. rnmq Miami Ilnn pnmon mu unquint I: m upon any vwmm. «av sdrml an and mmlmanl a. m Idvucllu ma salmvlar hemg meg‘ Hm Barcalmcn shall make arcause no he mlda Ml mqumal min ma cnamchv or In penmonlr and upon such pelhrcn bang ifl down «or heanna In forward up the cum mm s ocnmenml Iemn mm rssul|uls\u1'1mqu|r\es (2; AH me SIa|e Earonmrmllees on man than one) m we Stats: m much a pawn Ipwymg lo be aammaa punuanl Io net-m 15 nu Isrved MI pupmage 5713“ won me pmm-s pemmn bewng set down «pr hailing make or cause In M mad: mu mqumes unto me charncxev at me pammm and me mnfidarmal veporl ov me resmt Mme Wzmnes mu be laownrued in ms cmm Jusnce m such comments upon n as Ins Bar comm may conmsv neoessnry vmmn 33 43; w any of ma raperls relerved In . subsec1Ion m or subuechun (2)15 ummummmm pnlmcuvlhe Cmlumwe miy‘ um Ihmksfm mm such reoon In be mad m com and a way Ihereofl m be served an Ihs pslmonsr and, subjen In such dlmcmru as me Cuun may gm, such upon man be (Iken mm mnm.m.:n on ma Manna aura vumion (4; Au mans Ind oummurucallum under um. unlmn mu bl ltxmulaly anv-laced" Secuon 15 cl ma LPA deals mm a petmon Var admission wnh aflldavil The pmwsmn Is as vollawsz ~15. mam». larlflmiuiuu wml aflldavll m Tms semun shal anviy to -my pman who pruposes to apply m as admmed and emuuea as an advocate and saicnar L2) An appknalsm furadmlssmn unde( mus secmn mu be by a peuuon u: m. Com! and mm Dy MfwJavI| 43) Evuy pcmlonlv snam nal less Ihan lamlzzn day: wore my peiman V5 to by hard or rum shonerpemd 2. Im Cuwl mayaflaw‘ an an amaavn exmhnlmg — (a} were ap|:\I:ah\e we ooplas at any documentary emdeme showing am he :5 : qulhflea person. an M0 recent cenmcalas asm ms good marausn Le) a certmcale cl dwligenca from ms masxa mm whom he sewed ms pupmuge m um whuv he u unwed no Move . pound of |zup|H3ae‘nrInmeab1snce mum cemficaleany umerememe .. mu Cum may ream slmwmg mu ha ha: uurved inch pupflliga wvlh dmuenoe. (up where appluzlbm‘ - c-mfiuxo mm by the Secretary at Inc Board manna Detlmner has alterdad the sauna: o4 Inslrunnn And pus-a lhu sximmalrons‘ w my‘ rlqmma m m an um” ms Au. (9; menu appucanue, a cemncave lmm his pvinnbnl mm ho nus sa1vs12c1nn7y served me nppmpnm penud as an amded dent: my true comes Many dounmemary evidence smwmg man he Is any 5 Fads!-II c-um ura PEIv1IinIn|rII\dI1I|MMl|ly|Il, -no 1;) nus coma at my documenury avmenoe Ihal he has paged nr xsaxamvied (mm mu Eahara mum. Qumifymg Eummilmn ». mm

Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-12BNCvC-15-05/2021

PERAYU PERMAS JAYA SDN BHD RESPONDEN Goh Hock Lai berniaga sebagai GHL Golf Academy

This was an appeal from the decision of the Sessions Court - TNB (Plaintiff) in the court below, sued the appellant/defendant (owner of the premises) for tampering with the electric meter. The appellant/defendant brought in the respondent as a 3rd party in the suit since he was the tenant of the said premises at the time.-Appeal allowed

21/12/2023

YA Datuk Aslam Bin Zainuddin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6c7f67df-41b0-452d-9d7a-9d43d846b8df&Inline=true

p0401-apcms2112-Permas Jaya SB v Goh Hock Lai Page 1 of 26 MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM CIVIL APPEAL NO. JA-12BNCVC-15-05/2021 BETWEEN PERMAS JAYA SDN BHD (Company No: 14161-T) …APPELLANT AND GOH HOCK LAI (NRIC: 610209-01-5413) BERNIAGA SEBAGAI GHL GOLF ACADEMY (Business No: JM0353639-U) …RESPONDENT (DALAM PERKARA GUAMAN JA-A52NCvC-186-07/2019 MAHKAMAH SESYEN SIVIL, JOHOR BAHRU ANTARA TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200866-W) …PLAINTIF DAN PERMAS JAYA SDN. BHD. (NO SYARIKAT: 14161-T …DEFENDAN DAN GOH HOCK LAI (NRIC: 610209-01-5413) BERNIAGA SEBAGAI GHL GOLF ACADEMY (Business No: JM0353639-U) …PIHAK KETIGA) 04/01/2024 11:56:48 JA-12BNCvC-15-05/2021 Kand. 18 S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 26 GROUNDS OF DECISION [1] This was an appeal from the decision of the Sessions Court where Tenaga Nasional Bhd who was the plaintiff in the court below, sued the appellant/defendant as the owner of the premises for tampering with the electric meter. The appellant/defendant brought in the respondent as a third party in the suit since he was the tenant of the said premises at the time. The sessions court judge had dismissed Tenaga’s and the appellant’s claim. On appeal to the High Court, I allowed the claim by TNB and the appellant. There were two appeals filed in relation to this matter, the first was by the plaintiff TNB vide case no JA-12BNCvC-16-05/2021 and the second was by the appellant/defendant vide case no JA- 12BNCvC-15-05/2021. Both the appeals were heard together and the claim by TNB and the appellant were allowed with costs of RM 5000.00 and allocatur fees. The respondent now appeals further to the Court of Appeal. As of the date of this judgment, there was no appeal filed in case no JA-12BNCvC-16- 05/2021. [2] The facts of the case as can be gleaned from the submissions of the appellant/defendant is as follows: “A. SALIENT FACTS OF THE CASE i. At all material times, the Defendant is the registered proprietor of the lands bearing the title numbers Geran Mukim 1404 Lot 50727, HS(D) 260265 PTD 147017, Geran Mukim 1405 Lot 50729, HS(D) 260264 PTD 147016, HS(D) 260266 PTD 147018 (later known as HS(D) 530623 PTD 200073, HS(D) S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 26 530624 PTD 200074, and HS(D) 530626 PTD 200076), all of which are within Mukim of Plentong, District of Johor Bahru, State of Johor and bearing the postal address of Golf Course, Jalan Permas Selatan, Bandar Permas Jaya, 81750 Masai, Johor (“the said Premises”). ii. The Defendant owns an electricity supply user account with the number 03450061760501 (“the said Account”) for the said Premises. iii. From 1.7.2009 to 31.3.2016 (“the said Tenancy Period”), the Defendant had rented the said Premises to the Third Party via lease exempt from registration dated 24.8.2009 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party, letter dated 29.6.2011, lease exempt from registration dated 7.9.2012 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party, letter dated 2.5.2013 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party, lease exempt from registration dated 20.7.2014 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party and letter dated 4.6.2015 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party. iv. On 25.2.2016, the Defendant received “Surat Tuntutan Bagi Amaun Kerugian Hasil (Terkurang Caj) Dan Perbelanjaan Akibat Mengganggu / Mengubahpinda / Merosakkan Pepasangan Meter Tenaga Nasional Berhad” dated 24.2016 from the Plaintiff claiming that the Plaintiff had performed an inspection on the meter installation / meter in the said Premises on 14.10.2014 (“the Alleged Inspection”) (which is denied) and discovered elements of interference / alteration / damage on the meter installation / meter and that had caused failure to record the actual output or consumption of electricity by the meter installation / meter (which is denied) (“the Alleged Meter Tampering”) and thereafter claimed from the Defendant as the registered owner of the said Account a total sum of RM126,033.23 being the loss of revenue calculating S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 26 from 1.12.2011 to 14.10.2014 and the rectification costs (which is denied). v. Neither the Defendant nor the Defendant’s representative was notified to be present during the Alleged Inspection (which is denied). vi. After having received Exhibit P3, on 1.3.2016, the Defendant served a reply letter dated 1.3.2016 to the Plaintiff, wherein the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that the said Premises were rented to the Third Party and the Defendant was contacting the Third Party to get an explanation from him in regards to the Plaintiff’s claim. vii. On the same day i.e. 1.3.2016, the Defendant also served a notice of demand dated 1.3.2016 to the Third Party to inform the Third Party about the Plaintiff’s claim and to demand the Third Party to settle the Plaintiff’s claim as the Alleged Meter Tampering (which is denied) occurred during the said Tenancy Period. viii. On 16.3.2016, the Defendant’s security guard, Mr Azeman Bin Abdullah (“SD1”) lodged a police report to deny the Alleged Meter Tampering and stressed that the meter installation / meter was inside the Plaintiff’s meter room and the meter room was locked and the keys were in the Plaintiff’s possession, save for the Plaintiff, no one else was able to access the meter installation / meter. ix. On 17.3.2016, the Defendant served a letter dated 17.3.2016 to the Plaintiff to demand on explanation from the Plaintiff in regards to the location of the meter installation / meter which was said to be tampered with (which is denied), the reasons as to why the Defendant and/or the Defendant’s representative was not informed to be present during the Alleged Inspection (which is denied), evidences on the Alleged Meter Tampering S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 26 (which is denied), and the particulars in regards to the loss of revenue of RM126,033.23 (which is denied). x. On 24.3.2016, the Defendant served a letter of demand dated 24.3.2016 to the Third Party to inform him that the Defendant reserved its rights to hold the Third Party responsible for any and all demand by the Plaintiff in regards to the Alleged Meter Tampering (which is denied). xi. On 7.6.2016, the Plaintiff served a letter dated 7.6.2016 to invite the Defendant to its office at MIT – OSC Johor, Aras 12, Wisma TNB, Jalan Yahya Awal, Johor Bahru on 13.6.2016 at 10.30 am for a discussion on the loss of revenue (which is denied). xii. On 13.6.2016, a discussion was held between the Defendant’s representative namely Cheong Tuck Choy (Samuel) (“SD2”), the Third Party / SPK1, and 2 other Plaintiff’s representatives. On the same day, the Defendant served a letter dated 13.6.2016 to the Plaintiff to offer an explanation and to inform the Plaintiff that: a. the meter installation / meter which was alleged to have been tampered as shown in Exhibit P3 could not be traced by the Defendant’s mechanical and electrical consultant after an inspection had been conducted on the meter installation / meter in the said Premises; b. research was done on the electricity usage record on the said Premises from year 2009 to 2016, which was attached together with Exhibit D29 to show that the fluctuation in electricity consumption for the period concerned. Exhibit D24 showed that the reduction in the electricity consumption was normal; S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 26 c. Exhibit D24 also gave an explanation in regards to the reduction of the electricity consumption in December 2011 was due to the closure of Modjo Café and Bistro (JM0548152-X), a sub-tenant of the Third Party; d. neither the Defendant nor the Third Party was informed the Alleged Meter Tampering (which is denied) after the Alleged Inspection (which is denied) was performed, in order for them to verify it immediately; e. there was no acknowledge receipt of the Alleged Inspection (which is denied) by the Defendant; and f. after the Plaintiff had conducted the Alleged Inspection (which is denied), the electricity consumption rate in the said Premises did not show any drastic change as claimed by the Plaintiff, except for the increase in the tariff for electricity consumption. xiii. Since 13.6.2016, the Defendant did not receive any reply from the Plaintiff.” [3] Let me now examine and discuss some relevant case law on the issue of meter tampering. [4] The first case on point is the case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v JCY HDD Technology Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 1301, where the High Court held: “[31] The fact in issue that must be proven by the Plaintiff is that the meters at the Defendant’s Premises had been tampered with and that the Plaintiff had suffered loss as a result. In the event the Plaintiff fails to prove these facts on a balance of probabilities, its case must necessarily fail.” S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 26 [5] To those who want to read what happened earlier in the above case see Tenaga Nasional Bhd v JCY HDD Technology Sdn Bhd [2012] 3 MLJ 705; [2012] MLJU 217; [2012] 1 LNS 168; [2012] 3 AMR 576; [2013] 7 CLJ 799. [6] The second case is the Federal Court case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Ichi-Ban Plastic (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2018] 3 MLJ 141, [2018] 3 CLJ 557, where the facts were: “The common issues that arose for the court’s adjudication were: (i) whether a consumer must first be convicted for meter- tampering before Tenaga Nasional Bhd (‘TNB’) could recover the loss of revenue under s 38(3) and (4) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (‘the Act’); (ii) the legal effect of the written statement from TNB under s 38(4) of the Act for purposes of recovery of the loss of revenue; (iii) whether an estimation or approximation of the loss of revenue suffered by TNB as a result of a tampered meter at the consumer’s premises is precluded under s 38 claim; (iv) whether the rationale behind s 38 of the Act enabling TNB to recover the unrecorded consumption of electricity by the consumer due to a tampered meter is the unjust benefit enjoyed by the consumer; and (v) whether estoppel arising from delay applies to nullify a s 38 claim.” [7] The Federal Court speaking through Ahmad Maarop CJM, Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Azahar Mohamed, Aziah Ali FCJJ held: S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 26 “[33] Now, we revert to the two questions of law posed to us. Both questions relate to the construction of s 38(3) and (4) of the Act. The first question itself is flawed. It refers to a wrong provision. TNB’s right to claim its loss of revenue is under s 38(3) and not s 38(4) of the Act as stated in the question. A wrong question does not require any answer. The second question concerns s 38(3) and 38(4) of the Act. Section 38(4) is a provision relating to the mode of proof where TNB makes a claim for loss of revenue under s 38(3) of the Act. A written statement by an employee duly certified by TNB or by person authorised by TNB stating: (a) the amount of loss of revenue or the expenses incurred by TNB; and (b) the person liable for the payment thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of the payment that has to be made by the consumer under s 38(3) of the Act. For reasons as stated earlier in this judgment a criminal conviction of an offence under s 37(1), (3) or (14) of the Act is not a precondition for TNB to pursue its claims for loss of revenue under s 38(3) of the Act. This right is a separate right independent of its right to disconnect the supply of electricity under s 38(1) of the Act. The answer to the second question must be in the negative. ……… [62] For a written statement to have the effect of a prima facie evidence it must be issued in compliance with the requirement of s 38(4) of the Act. In Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn Bhd the Court of Appeal at p 757, held that for S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 26 TNB to rely on a written statement, the following must have taken place: (i) the appellant must have calculated the loss of revenue and reduce it into a document and written statement; (ii) an employee and/or duly authorised person of the appellant must have perused the document as well as the written statement to certify the written statement; (iii) the certified written statement must contain the particulars stated in s 38(4) of the ESA 1990; (iv) for a valid certificate, the name of the employee or authorised person of the appellant must appear in the statement and duly signed; (v) if a proper certified statement is issued, it needs to be served on the customer and if the customer does not pay, then civil action can be taken. Thus, it is a condition precedent for initiation of civil action in reliance of s 38 for Tenaga to issue a certified written statement according to law, before civil action can be commenced; ……….. [65] In addition, we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn Bhd that the written statement issued pursuant to s 38(4) of the Act by TNB must satisfy the first five conditions mentioned in that case (which are reproduced in para 62 of this judgment) in order for it to be accepted as a prima facie evidence of the payment that has to be made by the consumer. [66] In cases where the written statement was not issued in compliance with s 38(4) of the Act, TNB loses the advantage of the presumption of a prima facie evidence but it does not S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 26 lose the right of recovery given statutorily under s 38(3) of the Act. TNB however, has to prove its claim based on the civil burden and the standard of proof of balance of probabilities. ……… [86] Reverting to the issues raised relating to the calculation point, due to the nature of the claim, we appreciate that there may be difficulty in obtaining the evidence for the claim under s 38 of the Act. Nevertheless, in our view, it would be unwise for us to use this occasion to say anything which might be taken as specifying or limiting the nature and extent of the evidence necessary to establish a claim for loss of revenue under s 38 of the Act. Where precise evidence is available, as for example if there is a special device to measure the loss of revenue due to the tampering of electricity supply, naturally the court expects to have it, but where it is not the court must do the best it can. In other words, there could be other evidence in lieu of precise evidence. For example, approximation or estimation may be used provided it is reasonable and fair. This would depend on the quality of the evidence adduced in court to support that approximation or estimation. In light of what we have said thus far, we find it unnecessary to answer the two questions posed. ……….. [96] Coming back to the present appeals, as an alternative or in addition to the statutory cause of action under s 38(3) of the Act for recovery for loss of revenue, TNB is similarly entitled to legally pursue the claim based on a cause of action in unjust enrichment. If TNB elects to pursue relief for unjust enrichment then, as is a matter of settled law, there must be a proper and specific plea in the statement of claim that its cause of action is so founded. Further, material particulars that give rise to S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 26 unjust enrichment must be provided in the pleadings. In this regard, it is a well-settled legal principle that the court should not decide on an issue that was not pleaded by the parties. Parties are required to set out the factual bases of their respective cases in the pleadings. The most important purpose of pleadings is to plead reasonable cause of action, define the issues of fact and questions of law to be determined by the court (see Saiman bin Umar v Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang and another appeal [2015] 6 MLJ 492). Pleadings enable both parties to know in advance the averments being made against them so that they will not be taken by surprise during the trial. Tellingly, in the present appeals TNB did not plead that its cause of action was founded on the law of unjust enrichment. Unjust benefit was not a pleaded issue. With respect, the submission on the benefit/unjust enrichment question by learned counsel for TNB is, therefore, misconceived.” Whether there was meter tampering [8] The sessions court judge in her grounds, which can be found in enclosure 12 supplementary record of appeal (4) at page 529 said: “Mahkamah dapati wujud pemeriksaan yang telah dijalankan oleh Plaintif melalui keterangan-keterangan SP1, SP4 dan SP5 di premis Defendan dan berlaku kejanggalan pada meter menyebabkan wujud usikan pada P2, panel CT iaitu pendawaian S1 bagi fasa biru di dalam terminal CT walaupun arus sebenar bagi fasa biru adalah 5.8 Amp tetapi meter merekodkan 0 Amp. Memandangkan wujud usikan maka sewajarnyalah Plaintif berhak menuntut kerugian ke atas usikan berdasarkan pernyataan bertulis pekerja Plaintif menurut syarat-syarat s.38(4) yang diterjemahkan di S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 26 dalam kes Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. [2015] 4 MLRA 645.” [9] Therefore the principles culled from the case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Ichi-Ban Plastic (M) Sdn Bhd above applies in the case before me. [10] In Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Asia Knight Bhd (previously known as Pahanco Corp Bhd) [2017] 5 MLJ 681, the Court of Appeal speaking through Vernon Ong JCA (as he then was) said: “[11]…In this connection, we have perused the learned judge’s written judgment and note that the learned judge did not make any finding that there was no tampering of the meter. Instead, the learned judge took the position that there was no evidence to prove that the defendant had access to the meter installation or had tampered with the meter. In other words, there was a non-finding on the question of whether the meter was tampered, which in our considered view is a serious misdirection on the facts and on the law. We also find support for our view in the Federal Court decision which held that only a subjective finding of the plaintiff’s employee is required to prove tampering WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd. On the totality of the evidence we are of the view that on a balance of probabilities the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the meter was tampered.” [11] In Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2021] 9 CLJ 179, the Federal Court speaking via Azahar Mohamed CJM (as he then was) opined: S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 26 “[60] In our view, the resolution of the question turns on the interpretation of sub-ss. 38(1) and (3) of the ESA 1990. If regard had to be given to the phrase "where any person employed by a licensee finds upon any premises evidence which gives reasonable grounds for him to believe that an offence has been committed under sub-s. 37(1), (3) or (14) " appearing in sub-s. 38(1) of the ESA 1990, it is clear that whether an offence has been committed under these subsections is based on TNB's employee "subjective finding". "Grounds to believe" is a common feature in criminal and civil statutes. It is made of two words "grounds" and "to believe". The word "grounds" means to accept as true or to have faith in it. Before TNB's employee has faith or accepts a fact to exist there must be a justification for it. The belief may not be open to scrutiny as it is final conclusion arrived at by TNB's employee concerned as result of mental exercise made by him or her as the result of an inspection carried out at the consumer's premises. [61] However, we take the stand that the reason due to which the conclusion and/or decision is reached can always be examined. When we said that the "grounds to believe" is not open to scrutiny by the court what we meant is that the finding and/or satisfaction arrived at by the employee concerned is immune from challenge but where the finding and/or conclusion is not based on any material or it cannot withstand the test of reason, which is an integral part of it, then it falls through and the court is empowered to reject such finding and/or satisfaction. Belief may be subjective but grounds are objective (see: Ganga Prasad Maheshwari v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 1043; [1981] 21 CTR 83 (AID)). In other words, the "grounds to believe" must be good in faith and must have a S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 26 rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief. Belief must not be based on suspicions, speculation, surmise, conjecture, supposition or guesswork. Therefore, the existence of evidence is necessary. [62] As we have stated earlier, we are fully in agreement and endorse the decision in Ichi-Ban (supra) where this court held that the person who decides whether an offence has been committed under sub-ss. 38(1) and (3) of the ESA 1990 is the person "employed by a licensee (TNB)". And the finding whether an offence has been committed is based on the "subjective finding" of the TNB's employee (see: para [27] of the judgment).” Whether the Energy Commission’s Guidelines are binding [12] In Thong Foo Ching & Ors v Shigenori Ono [1998] 4 MLJ 585, the Court of Appeal via Siti Norma Yaakob JCA (as she then was) held: “A reading of the guidelines shows that there is no penalty imposed for non-compliance of any of their provisions. From the very nature of the document itself and its purpose to eradicate poverty by restructuring the Malaysian society so as to correct any racial economic imbalance, at most I would say the guidelines impose a moral obligation only on those affected to comply with their provisions. In this respect, I agree with Mr Wong that non-compliance or avoidance of the guidelines cannot render any agreement to be invalid or unenforceable. At most, non-compliance can be used as a means of refusing to exercise a discretion, a purely administrative act, as was done by the directors in David Hey's case. On the facts of the appeal before us, I consider that the learned trial judge was correct when she held that avoidance of the guidelines in the manner that S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 15 of 26 was done in this case cannot be held against the respondent as to render the two agreements invalid.” [13] In the case of Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Yu Woon Gin & Anor [2016] MLJU 1019, the High Court decided as below: “[9] I am in agreement with the submission of Miss Prithi that it is patently clear from paragraph 4 of the grounds of judgment that the claim was dismissed on account of TNB’s omission to comply with para 5.2.2 of Guideline. The Sessions Judge was wrong in doing so as the Guideline is purely an administrative guideline and not legally binding on TNB. Section 38 of the ESA permits TNB to rely on the findings of a person employed by it prove meter tampering. The evidence of SP1 and SP2 was sufficient to prove there was meter tampering.” [14] In the case of Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Lension (M) Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 42, it was stated: “[18] There was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was bound to follow the guidelines set by Energy Commission. The plaintiff could have elected to claim back-billing of more than five years. However, the plaintiff took heed of the advice found in the Energy Commission's guidelines to claim the maximum back-billing for five years. [19] Following the advice in the guidelines set by a regulatory body is different from saying the guidelines are binding. In this instant case, the plaintiff followed the guidelines with good faith and accepted it as good practice in exercising its right to formulate the back-billing claims. The plaintiff followed the S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 16 of 26 guidelines not because they were binding on the plaintiff or because they have force of law, but merely as good practice.” Calculation of Losses by Tenaga Nasional [15] In the next case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Bright Rims Manufacturing Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 CLJ 521, it was held as follows: “[14] An objective appreciation of the amount claimed based upon an estimate necessarily requires consideration from the correct perspective. That parliament provided by legislation for claims arising from tampered meters means that parliament reflects the public concern that the selfish acts of those who tamper with the meters inevitably makes the cost of electricity supply more expensive to the public. It is also obvious where a meter is tampered with, there is left no accurate metering of the electricity consumed. To require of the estimate to prove the amount claimed upon a balance of probabilities defeats the acceptance that it may be proved by an estimate. Herein lies the sting: to require too high a standard of proof defeats the estimate and rewards the consumer who tampered with the meter. The wisdom of doing so is so questionable that justice cannot possibly require such a standard. The inequity is equally obvious, for such consumer comes not with clean hands. Justice must necessarily hold that in the balance of justice, it must be the consumer who tampered with the meter who must bear the risk of having to pay more rather than the licensee to take a loss not because it was unable to prove the tampering but because it could not meet the high standard required from the estimate. [15] The reasoning that the respondent had proved a manifest error upon a balance of probabilities is equally flawed. It is the S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 17 of 26 amount claimed that has to be proved upon a balance of probabilities. A claim for backbilled sums due to meter tampering is necessarily based upon an estimate. That estimate is accepted unless it is demonstrated that there is manifest error. It is a question of whether there is or there is not a manifest error. That there is upon a balance of probabilities a manifest error is insufficient to elevate conjecture to a demonstration of manifest error.” [16] Referring again to the case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2021] 9 CLJ 179, supra it was decided by Azahar Mohamed CJM (as he then was) that: “[86] The determination of this issue begins with the similar reference to the decision in Ichi-Ban (supra) where it was accepted that loss of revenue due to meter tampering may be difficult to assess due to evidential difficulties, but damages may still be awarded. It was held that in the absence of precise evidence, approximation or estimation may be used to prove the loss, provided that it is reasonable and fair. It was made clear that "The court must determine the damages as best as it could" and that evidential difficulties in the assessment of damages is not a bar to the court awarding damages.” [17] Finally in Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2015] 6 CLJ 751, it was held: “[6] However, if Tenaga relies on s. 38, they need not prove that the customer tampered with the meter. It is sufficient if they can show that the meter has been tampered. In terms of quantum S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 18 of 26 they can rely on certified written statement to establish their case. That does not mean the respondent cannot challenge the quantum. For the appellant to rely on a written statement, the following must have taken place: (i) the appellant must have calculated the loss of revenue and reduce it into a document and written statement; (ii) an employee and/or duly authorised person of the appellant must have perused the document as well as the written statement to certify the written statement; (iii) the certified written statement must contain the particulars stated in s. 38(4) of ESA 1990; (iv) for a valid certificate, the name of the employee or authorised person of the appellant must appear in the statement and duly signed; (v) if a proper certified statement is issued, it needs to be served on the customer and if the customer does not pay, then civil action can be taken. Thus, it is a condition precedent for initiation of civil action in reliance of s. 38 for Tenaga to issue a certified written statement according to law, before civil action can be commenced;” Appellant/Defendant’s claim against the Respondent/Third Party [18] The appellant submitted that the sessions judge erred in her reasoning to disallow the claim against the respondent third party as follows: “The learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and/or in fact in dismissing the Defendant’s claim against the Third Party with scale cost. S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 19 of 26 i. The Defendant refers to paragraphs 1 to 11, Memorandum of Appeal 15 and submits that the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and/or in fact in dismissing the Defendant’s claim against the Third Party with scale cost. ii. It is submitted that in the grounds of judgment, the learned Sessions Court Judge did not state the reasons of her decision in dismissing the Defendant’s claim against the Third Party with scale cost. iii. In accordance to Exhibits D17, D19 and D21 which was signed by the Defendant and Third Party, the parties had, inter alia, agreed: a. Clause 6.01(i), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.01(i), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.01(i), Exhibit D21. “To obey and comply with and to INDEMNIFY THE OWNER against the breach of all Acts regulations bye- laws rules and requirements of any Governmental or other competent authority relating to the conduct and carrying on of the business of the Club or to any act deed matter or thing done permitted suffered or omitted thereon by the Lessee or by any servant agent or licensee of the Lessee.” b. Clause 6.01(i), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.01(i), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.01(i), Exhibit D21. “To comply with the terms of any Act of Parliament, order, regulation, bye-law, rule, license and registration authorizing or regulating how the Golf Course and Buildings are used.” c. Clause 6.01 (j), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.01(j), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.01(j), Exhibit D21. S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 20 of 26 “Not to conduct the operation of the Club in such a way as to prejudice the goodwill and reputation of the Owner as the registered owner of the Golf Course and Buildings.” d. Proviso clause 6.01(j), Exhibit D17; Proviso clause 4.01(j), Exhibit D19; Proviso clause 4.01(j), Exhibit D21. “AND PROVIDED ALSO THAT the Lessee shall at all times, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP INDEMNIFIED THE OWNER from and against any and all loss damage or liability (whether criminal or civil) suffered by the Owner as a result of the breach of Lessee of this provision, or any other wrong doings on the part of the Lessee in relation thereto.” e. Clause 6.03(e), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.03(e), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.03(e), Exhibit D21. “To repair replace or install if so required by the Owner or the appropriate authority the electric meter, wiring installation and equipment as well as water meter, piping installation and equipment within the Golf Course and Buildings in respect of any damage, caused to the same by the Lessee, and for such purposes to use only the contractors approved by the Owner to carry out any electrical or plumbing works within the Golf Course and Buildings.” f. Clause 6.03(h), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.03(h), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.03(h), Exhibit D21. “Not to install or use in the Golf Course and Buildings any plant apparatus machinery or equipment which consumes electricity not metered through the meters S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 21 of 26 from which the Lessee’s consumption of electricity is calculated.” g. Clause 6.03(k), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.03(k), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.03(k), Exhibit D21. “At all times hereafter to INDEMNIFY AND KEEP INDEMNIFIED THE OWNER against all actions proceedings claims demands costs damages and expenses which may be levied brought or made against the Owner by reason of any act default or omission of the Lessee its servants agents or licensees whatsoever.” iv. Since the Third Party had signed and agreed to Exhibits D17, D19 and D21 which containing the above clauses, the Third Party was bound by the said clauses which the Third Party ought to indemnify and/or keep indemnified the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s claim; v. SECONDLY, the Alleged Meter Tampering (which is denied) happened from 1.12.2011 until 14.10.2014. During that time, the Third Party was the tenant of the said Premises which the said Premises was under the possession and control of the Third Party; vi. It is submitted that it is unlikely the Defendant tampered the meter as this did not benefit the Defendant. On the contrary, the Third Party would be getting benefit from tampering the meter since the said Premises was under the possession and control of the Third Party. Thus, it is submitted that the Third Party is the party who is tampered with the meter installation/meter at the said Premises, not the Defendant; S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 22 of 26 vii. Moreover, if the witness statements given by SP1, SP4 and SP5 are acceptable by this Honourable Court, it is submitted that SP1, SP4 and SP5 had testified that when they conducted the Alleged Inspection (which is denied), the alleged worker opened the meter room door for them and affixed the business stamp of “Permas Jaya Golf Club (managed by GHL Golf Academy)” on Exhibit P9. SPK1 had admitted that the business stamp of “Permas Jaya Golf Club (managed by GHL Golf Academy)”, appeared on Exhibit P9 belonged to him.” [19] Section 29 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and O.55 r.2 ROC states that all appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing and shall be brought by giving a notice of appeal within fourteen days from the date of the decision appealed from. Based on the record of appeal filed and the written and oral submissions by the appellant and respondent, I found that the sessions court judge had erred in her findings and had failed to appreciate the facts and law properly. [20] In the Court of Appeal case of UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd & Anor v Allan Chong Teck Khin & Anor [2021] 3 MLJ 107, Supang Lian JCA opined as follows: “PRINCIPLES OF APPELLATE INTERVENTION [28] Foremost on our minds are the two tests, namely, ‘plainly wrong’ test and ‘insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence’ test for appellate interference in a subordinate court’s finding. In respect of the two tests, the Court of Appeal held as follows in Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97 at pp 98–99: S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 23 of 26 “(2) Generally, an appellate court will not intervene unless the trial court was shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision or where there had been no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence. Judicial appreciation of evidence meant that a judge who was required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. He must, when deciding whether to accept or to reject the evidence of a witness, test it against relevant criteria. Thus, he must take into account the presence or absence of any motive that a witness may have in giving his evidence. Where contemporaneous documents existed, he must test the oral evidence of a witness against these. He must also test the evidence of a particular witness against these. He must also test the evidence of a witness against the probabilities of the case. The principle central. to appellate interference is that a decision arrived at by a trial court without judicial appreciation of the evidence may be set aside on appeal.” [29] The Court of Appeal has reiterated in Ong Leong Chiou & Anor v Keller (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2019] MLJU 38; [2019] 3 MLRA 322 at p 329 that: “[25] We are mindful of the limited role of the appellate court in relation to the findings of facts made by the court of first instance. The general principle is that the conclusion of a trial judge is a finding of fact on the oral evidence based on the demeanour and credibility of the S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 24 of 26 witness before him or her. Generally, such finding ought not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is plainly wrong. It would not be sufficient to warrant an appellate interference merely because the appellate court entertains doubt whether such finding is right (see: Lee Ing Chin & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97; [2003] 1 MLRA 95; Gan Yook Chin & Anor v Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2001] MLJU 21; [2004] 2 MLRA 1). [30] In Mohamed bin Abdullah v Chah Hea Seng [1980] 2 MLJ 282; [1980] 1 LNS 48, the Federal Court held: “The decision of the learned judge was clearly not a specific finding of fact but a finding of facts which are really inferences drawn from facts specifically found, and on the principles enunciated in Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd [1955] AC 370, we feel more at liberty to form an independent opinion on the conclusion which should reasonably be drawn.” [21] Last but not least in Paya Terubong Estates Sdn Bhd v Pusaka Warisan Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 MLJ 463, the learned Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) was of the view: “One can, of course, quite well appreciate an appellate court's reluctance to disturb the primary exercise of discretion. This is because a court of appeal in a matter such as the present does not possess an original discretion, its initial function being one of review only. However, where, as in the present instance, it is amply demonstrated that the judge in whom the primary discretion is vested S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 25 of 26 has failed to take into account relevant considerations, it is the duty of this court to say so and to intervene and set matters right by an exercise of its own discretion.” [22] Ergo the appellant’s appeal was allowed with costs. Dated: 21st December 2023 Signed (ASLAM BIN 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 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 26 of 26 COUNSEL For the Appellant: W. H. Chew Messrs. K H Loo & Co Advocates & Solicitors No. 16-01, Jln Bestari 2/2 Taman Nusa Bestari 81300 Skudai Johor For the Respondent: C K Yap Messrs. C. K. Yap & Partnes Advocates & Solicitors No. 21A, Jln. Sutera Tanjung 8/2 Taman Sutera Utama 81300 Skudai Johor S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JB-22NCvC-28-04/2021

PLAINTIF NAQIUDDIN BIN ZOLKEFLEE DEFENDAN AYOB BIN MUSTAPA @ MUSTAFA

Indefeasibility of title – Claim to set aside the transfer – Based on the insufficient or void instrument – Section 340 NLC 1965 (Revised 2020) – Irrevocable Power of Attorney – Contents not explained to Donor – Dated later from the date of execution - No valuable consideration – Whether Power of Attorney valid– Failure to prove payment of purchase price – Burden of proof – Failure to call material witnesses – Presumption of adverse inference.

21/12/2023

YA Tuan Suria Kumar a/l Durairaj Johnson Paul

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8e74f1f9-bf0e-487a-b714-c44d505c1947&Inline=true

21/12/2023 08:06:26 JB-22NCvC-28-04/2021 Kand. 75 S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N fF0jg6/eki3FMRNUFwZRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JE—22IlCvC—28-DI/2021 Kand. 75 uuzncvc M/ZnZ‘IJ E‘C"'2” DALAM NIAHKAMAH YINGGI MALAYA at DNA}? DALAM NEGERI JONOR DARLIL YAKZIM, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO JB zucv 27414/2021 ‘ ANTARA \ MUSTAQEEM am IOLKEFLEE 1N0. K/P : 560106-4116613) PLAINTIF DAN AVOB am MUSTAPA @ Musnxn (No. saw : 4604114215433) ...DEFENDAN (Dibicarakan beruma kn) DALAM MAHKAMAH YINGGI MALAVA DI MUAR DALAM NEGERi Jonon DARUL TAKIJM MALAYSIA .. PLAINTIF DAN AVDE am MU3l’APA @ MUSTAFA ‘ (NO. K/P : 450411015433) ...DEFENDAN 4 'NnlA sum ...m.., wm .. mad p. vevly M mm.“-V M W; mm. VII mun: NM‘ n zzncv HM/Znz :1 gonna: swam KUMAR AIL DIJRAIRAJ JOHNSON PAUL JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER tau<1L111Liuutztatiédawutxqnunzumzazawxxmzxuuuuacsxsxxsmm JUDGEMENT L1«<12:ann-amancan-as-amuummmmuuaaaaaauuuuaauamwm INTRODUCTION [1] sum me above cases concern me s=\e 012 mdmdual pieces cf rand [21 Pnamms u-um they do no: know me Defendant and mmem that they new agreed «a sell me warm no me Delandanl by way 0! an lrrevucable Puwev nl Atlumey [:1 On me alhev harm, the Deaemam says he never mat the rrlamms hm is zwave «mm mm pames Mal Pnamuns agreed M sell me lam‘! wa an Vnvvocabb Pawer n1AI1nmey1u avmd Real Pmpeny cams Tax (41 Smce |he puvpcned sz\e :2! mm {ands happened annoy me same um: mm.-g cnmman panics, common rm and me ma! was heard xogemer, I prqpose m dalrver one iudgemenl my NYFDpgn/Ik\3FMRNUFw1Rw — Nah: sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; mm. VI muus NM! us zzncvc 704/znzll I [521 F0! commelenass‘ I wm addvess me sum-smmuy 01 I113 mac veoarding and me lvanscnplicn elm: recuvdmg 15:1 Lelmed counsel for me mamuns uhyeded to me mes veeovdmg on me gmund [he sound was pm and mandible Hsvmg heard me moo g‘ 1 find me purporled explanahans gwen |a Pkamm Muslaflssm bshre me execunan avme wmvuqnad Pawer ofAm:mey mandible m Hlmlo warmoe v Law Yen ‘(an a mr(2a1213cLJ 302‘ n was new by Hws Lomsmp Harmlndir Smgh Dhallwal La: he then was).- ‘Hal/mg heard the Iscoldmg and pamsmg the hansmpt, I had svenous doubts as to whsmsr me Iransmpf accurate/Y I-aflecrsd Ms mrweuslmn that rock p/am Tm: rs 517 because the sound rsmrdfng was poor, mandible at times, bmksn and Ibrthe mos! part unintelligible. /n my wow, the Isconimg was wholly unre//able to mow anytnmg For ms reason. / considered n unsale Io re/y an ms evidence and it was acmnfirvg/y rajemsd ' [541 In mmunn, Delenoanl failed in call me maker nme ramming, ane Abdul Rahman an Ahu Eakar (“Amm nanmzw) who vemrded il usmg his handphone [55] Nenner ma Demenaanx adduce any ewaenoe as «a who lranswbed me cunvelsahan «mm me wdeu mcmmng and caned me (rznscribev [so] In nms cvcumstanne‘ x we mu lhe video remrdmg marked as\D11 and me lranscnptmn ame conversation «mm me recording marked asVD1Z\s\na1dm\ss\b\e SIN¥F0rgn/-kx3FMRNUFw1Rw I -W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; m.m. VI muus wvm IIm~cv='zW/mu T I: the In-evncable Power armamny v-Im [57] The crux 01 me P\aInl\Hs' cam \s that me wmpugned Fwer or Allamey is null and vmd [55] The F'lam|Wh' case is ma: may were under me Vmprssslnn an the wmle they were execmmg a Saks and Purchase Agreement wmu Dam’ Salleh hemg me p-acme: amum lands [as] men lather ma gave evidence that he was under me wmpressiun that ms sans‘ ma Plamms wave axecnlmg a Sale and Purchase Agveemenl mm Dam‘ Safleh as me huyer [so] Next Ptalnmis msanea man me documem which they executed was never explained to mem say the Inlicmar (uvva) [511 Homevev. aceorfllng lo we snhmmr (ma), he hid explamed the contents allhe wmpugned Puwer ulAItnmey en me P\amMs uevare Meir e\<ecu|K1n [521 we ewaenee were me Cowl shows lhal me Defendant we a snangena the Plamlms and mevrfamar and may navel m below [as] The Plamws andmeufzlhelwere all me while undevme Vmprewan [Hal me buyer was Datv‘ sauen FurIhevmvxe_ then famar also Iecewed a cheque m the sum m Rmamauu no tngelher with an nnhne pzymem lav Rmumm on from new Salleh on me date when me Pkamlflfs execmed me impugned Fomerm Attorney S!NYFDpgn/Ikx3FMRNUFw1Rw I -W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; mm. VI muus NM! [54] [651 I55] [51] [59] nu-zzwzvc-z1.aa/2n21 ln such slrcumstarlces, ll an all ll. * pugrled Power at Allarney lll lavour er me Delenaanl was lncxaea axplalnea In me Plslnllns, surely lne Plalrlllfls and me: lsme: waulu have quesmnea me sollcllor (DW3) as In why is me Defendant involved lrl lne sale lrarlsamiml lnsleeld nf new sellsn The pnalaglepns and vldea rewldlng Ioe do nal camwbcvale lne sallcllars (DW3) elIlderlcelha|Ihe imlzugned vowel almlonlsy was explained lo lhe Plalnlms. ln any event. I hava already rulsd above mal lne vldec reeonllnq ls Inadmlsslhle. As sudl me only ineaislmle lnlerence Much can be dlzwrl I5 \ha| DW3 dld nel exnlaln me wrI|an|s olme umpugnea Pcweromlomey to me Plalnmx nul merely amenaea Io lne-r execullon of the same by Ihe Plammls Plslnlms also atlscked Ine lmpugned Fame! al Allalney en lne gmund lnal (hnugh me execlmcn and at(esla|lorl look place an 11 12 2015, however, it Is daled15.05 2019 Whlch ls awmxlmatehf 6 momns lalerarld slempea orl151Z 2020, more lnan 2 years later we De1endarl|1D’\N1)and ms sallellal lnwa) explalned as la lne delay The rcasnrl is |a ensure me nansler cllhe sale lane ls nal canlea em wlllnn 5 year: lmu me dale ll-e Plelnnlls have acqwea (he sum land lrorn (hell lelners mmpany la: purposes alexemphnrl ham Real Properly Gains Tax Tm mnel reason belnfi lnel Delenusnl requrled [me lo ralse nnenee Oar me slarnp duty and F|aln|lWs lalner lrflended la sell me lands an sln lfflrgn/-kl:lFMRMuFwzm n -was s.n.l ...n..l an a. wed In my me .ngn.l-y we nnumleul VI erluws we [jpzzwcvc wznm E a mgrm pnoe k: 3 «mm pany and mmmm Delendanl an we puvchase price Ivgelharwwm mam nu] Hence we wmpugned Fame! nmmmey was kept in abeyanoe [711 me ml and ms Devvenaanvs explanauen acceptable In me nmmax amuse, me wmpugned Powev uIAItomey augm to have been dam on the same day n was e><ecu(ed by me Plalnlflf and witnessed by the sancnm (nwa) [721 However, Ihe lack vemamsthal me imgugned Pomemmnnmey was executed and allesled an H <2 2m 17:] Slnoeme Hamtwfa are rm dlspnlmgthewmgnalure on me vmpugnad Power av Anamey, u do no: find cm: gruund alane snfiuent no Invahdate me Pawer ammmey rm Wammfs .a\su anackefl me vahdwy 01 the impugned Power M Niamey on me gvuund n had cumrsvansd Secmzn 6 M the Pnwev amnomey Act‘ 1945 [or lack oivzluame nansmeusuan [75] Secmm 6 Fame! amzomay Au. I945 ('POA') read 7 5 Pawns afattumey given to: valuabh contldurnian (1; Ma pavveroI5fIon1sy, given Iorvaluab/e cansmerutlafl, rs rn me msllumenl clsmmg me puwar sxprasssd m be msvoczble, Merv, m favoulal a purchaser- S!NYFDpgn/Ikx3FMRNUFw1Rw T -W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; mm. VI muus NM! u zzM(V: ‘Mo/zun] E (5; me powershall not be Invoked at any Hms, srmer by arlytmrrg done by me donor ol the power wnnout me ooncunance nuns dune oune powsr, or by me mm, mar-nage‘ mental cmorusr. unsaundness nlrmrld. ar bankruptcy olms donar arms POrweK -and (:2) any acldonealarvylrme nyrne dons oflhe power. rn purxuance ol me power, man be 5: ma 3: n anything dune by me donor o/me pavvar wtthmn me concurrence olths done sung pcwur, ar (he mm, memege, merits/dtsamer, unsounams of mind orbankruplcyollhe donoralllvs power, had nomeen dons WIIIPDEIISC1, and (c) nemmms done olms power, narllve pmcmer, Ma//army um »ems;u.1muy ilfscfsd by notice or anytmrvg done by (He donor or me pcwar, without Ms concurrence afma dons crane power. or of me mm, marriage, mental dlsaldel, unsaurldneu ol mmd, or bankruptcy ol ms domzr al me power (2) ms section applies lo powers of aftumey cmated by Instrument: executed when won or any the commencement 12/ ms Act“ Us] Tne soncnor (Dwa) agveed In ms cvusssxammalmn that under Semmn 5 of me POA Am, a Power M Allomey veqmres valualfla canswderahen $5”. Wflrgn/-kx:lFMRNL1FwzRw T -W. sum ...n.., wm .. wed In my m. my.“-y Wm flnummnl VI muus wvm umzm/c.z7.o4/znm an M ts nu| .n dwipula mm the vmuugned Power niAIIomey makes no memlan 5! any valuame consnaeranon. rm M Amuenz Fmgm Sdn Blvd v. Sumaml KAppukm!an Film: 5. Anar /200115 CLJ 71, H1: Lordshvp zmkem Makinudin J (as he men was) hela . “(:1 The PA Iladla//an Iou/ofss 5 and Naspecliveq/alme Power of Anomey Am ms, Ibr sxplessmg Use/f as msvncable Men nu valuable consrderallon was given and - [75] Funnel m N] Fau1rH[A Mapd V Ksnangsn Ersf 5:111 and (200515 am 2:12, His Lordsmp Lam Hap Emg (as he men was) held - -(11 upon a proper construchon Dis. 5(1)(a] of me Pawels al Attorney Ac! ms, valuable oonmeramn rs an ssssnnal element in order m suslsm me irrevucabmry al a power or sflomsy and that mm vahlable consideration mus! be expnsssry statsd m spec/flc pemcu/us am; In me powerolaktameyffse/V - [:01 \n ma urcnmsnnoesn I find [ha impugned Pawar o€AI(amey‘ nns [Allen 6nu\ulSec1.1un 5 Mine FOA/-\cI and memma ns mvalid Any considcrlfiun paid for the nmnm mm Iandk. Vlflletlnr my 5.1. and Purchnsl llgrnmunt wn mm-d. 4 Wfirgn/-kx3FMRNL1Fw1Rw I -W. s.nn ...n..n Mu .. wed In mm m. .nnn.nn Wm mm. VI muws rmm 04/1021] [81] The Defiendanlmeaded n ma Defence man a sum dvRM1su,ooo on was pmd mwzvds me puvchsse cl me wands mm each ax me pnoe of RM37s,uuo on [:21 The Iegax burden is an me Dalendant (a move man Ihe sum M RM75u,nuo oowas new (a the P\amIMs as pnmded by SeclmIv101 aims Evidence Aer, man This was axplamed m me caseoi HONG vrx nuorue u LIZIZ PLANTATIONS sum am: 12:11 71 2 cu 491 by Hus Lamship Amfin Zakana CJ as |DUWws— ‘/1 Is semedlaw my me burden olproofrssls mmugnouma melon me parry Mm asserts mama Iacls exrsl (5. 1m arm surdenca Act ma; Mmere 5 parry on whom ma burden of pmal lies Ives drscnalgsd that burden, men we evrdermal burdsn smrcsm ma olherparry. However, we parryon whom we burden aw pm: hss ran; to discharge n, (he omar pany need not call any swdem ' {as} Aecordmg In oetendann a depasn av RM1DU‘UUD no was pmd «mm me sum or Rmzsnmn no wilhdrawn [mm ms ocac Bank aocounc an 23 11 zma [an] nevendam says ha handed me sum Runuunnu an In FaeezAm\ru\ and thereafter Faeez Arrwul twgalhsv wun Dam‘ Szlleh and Sallehuddm saw handed lhrs sum In the P\airmW:‘ father at Starbucks cave ax me lobby of KSL Hotel Johnr Bahru (351 ms was «uuawad by a ba\anca purchase pnce of Rmasooouoo which wai paid from the sum of RM8Q§‘DGO co wnhdvawn by Delendanl «mm ms Lembaga Tabung Han aceoum !NYFDpgn/lk\3FMRNUFw1Rw — mu. sum runner wm .. M544 In M, me nflgmnuly mm nnumeul VI gimme W.‘ us-«2~a=»zv»»««2r-an: M1 Aocurdmg m ue«end.an\ (rzvvmn updn wwmdnwmg the sum 01 Rmassuoo no, ne depusned lms sum by way al cash deposit man Faeez AmIml's company Hed Al Alaq Evem Managemenfs scmurn 1m Tnnraaner Faeex Annnux (uwz) wnndmw RMS50.00D on tram ms company: zcouum Ind handed it la Dana‘ Mohd Sallah, Sallehudm saw and Mad Rahmnn mm m [um handed u way In me F\aInIrWv and men father at a mum Vn Concurde Hole! Jnhor Bahru [as] Wheveas Faeex Amwul1DW2)zgreed \n his ieslimany max Ihete ws no prmfl :11 the sums nM1oa,ooc 00 and HMa5u,oau an handed «d me P\zmMIs and orthew fame! [as] The P|ainWr and lhelrfalhervehemermy deny vauswmg me sums RM1au,uoo.oa and Rmasunuau an [am It I: nm m dwspule that Delendanl vs unable to pruduea any wrmen ackndmaugemenx 0! documents «a wave lha| me sums nmwuunoouo and Rmamuoaoo were pain In Hammis and or melrlalher [91] ms «as: was also conceded by Ieamed munsel [or me Deiendant dunng «ax suhmisswuns [921 Awarding In Faeez Amwul mvvz) dunng ms (eslwnany, me bmwn LV bag placed on me Vmmd came shown \n ma pnowgrapns marked as as and um Domains me depnsn cash sum 0! RMIOD,O00 on IN Wnngn/-kx3FMRNUFw1Rw n W. sum ...n..n Mu .. wed In mm m. .nnn.n, mm mm. VI gimme wn [531 Hawevev. ns symsnce was led In show «run (he brown LV bag did indeed mnlam cssh m we sum cl RM1D0,DOfl no and ms sum was ham1ad|alhe Plairmffs lather wno can be seen m we Photograph logermerwnh Dam‘ ssusn and Saflehudmn Salar [94] As my ms Nuance sum at Rmssqauu oo, Faeez Am x (DWZ) Ieslrfled that he handed [ms sum In nsw Mona ssusn am Mohamadu Saflalmdm am ssnan AM Rnhmsn who In mm handad n vverm ms P\amm!s and urmelrlathevzula mam -n Concorde Hana! Jaharfiahm [951 Once agam, no ewdenae was pmduced Ihat (M sum 01 RMs5o,uoooo was wllhdrawn lmm Faeel Armmrs (uwzy mmpsny, Al Naq Even! Msnsgemsnrs aocounl and handed «a the Wamfifis and m mew «nuns: [951 Nenher um ssusn, ssnemmm ssnr Mr And Rahrvan who ans imponanl games m me sa\e transaction were csuem ca Iamfy m mspec: M this an :97] Learned counsel lavlhe Derenasnx submits mac Ina burden \s an ms msunms In caH Dam‘ ssusn and Sallalmddln $a(Ir my Vn my judgement‘ smee ms P\aAn1i1fs have darned veoewing any pumnsss mnsmsrsusn [or me ab 0! ms land span «mm me Rwomao uo unume paymenh ms human \s on me Dalendintln call Dike‘ ssuen and Sallehuddin saw smse ms Delendsm As sHegmg man we paymenx M RM1D0.00D on and rwasuyunu an was made lhmugh Dam‘ ssuen wn me presence o1Sa|Iehuddm Sa|ar syn nru,gsu.nsmnuuswzn.. E was sum ...n.., wm s. wed In my m. ungwnnuly Wm nnumeul VI muws rmm Iv zzncvr: many [as] In me ammsxance, an adverse mferenue under Ssclmn 114 (g) Evidsrrcs Act, 1750 bugm la be drawn against me Deranaam vb: ramng «a can Dale‘ saueh and Sallehuddm sum |n «esbiy mm regards In one payment cl RM|D0‘0DU era and RM65D‘DnD.Ofl to me Plalrmfls and armemaxnar. [1 on] The mlerenoe which needs tn be drawn Is that n mey were cafled, my aithem wmfld nnl be abbe be cm-mm or pmduce any ewaance ol me purparled payments In the Plamme and brmenamev. [1flI)Wharaas me soucwnr (mm m we pofica report lodged an canfvm that me wamma exacuvad ma impugned Pwer at Anbmey witnessed by mm also amea max me sum RM650,000 on was pam m cash In ma Fmmme at Ctmcovde Halal KL and me sum Hmmopuu on was bad m me Plzmflfls at me Ibbhy nl KSL Hoxex, Jenn! Bahvu by Data‘ Sllleh, Sallehudm sacav and Abdu\ Rahmsn [1D2]Hawever, during cmssexa ban, the sohcrrnr mvva) oammdmled mmeexe mm ms report by les‘ ng max he had no kmmeage DY pm me: mesa sums were pad by me Defendant m the Flamws [103]The Conn notes lhauhe Delandsnlmmsen am not Vndga any mporl stating that mesa payments were made en me Plavrmffs mu] m conduswon, mere ws nu ima av ewaenee that mese sums ma maeea am by Dsfundam excem lar me sum RM10.DO0.00 bensveuad by Dana‘ sauen In Flainmfs fzlhev an me dI(e cl Ihe exammon ome r-aweromnamey !NYFDpgn/lk\3FMRNUFw1Rw n W. sum ...u.., wm .. we in vemy me nugmnuly MW; mm. VI mums W.‘ ancxenouun nuns [5] The mammr‘ Muavaqaem Em zoxxauaa 1‘Mus|aqaem' n Sum No 21 became me registered pmpnew alland mun as H s (M) 1643 PTD ma, Mukwm Kesang, Dierah rangkak, Negen Johor on 4.3 2013 Mum uanavar «om ms ramera cumpzny Nam Ulung Sen and [51 Around me same me, another mace M land Known as as H s mmsas PTD 3103‘ Mukm Kesang‘ Daerzh Tangkak, Negen Johor was uansoem from New Ulunn Sdn and m ms mdev hmlhev Naqmddxn Em Zulkeflee ruaqmuam-), ma F\a\nmT m Sm| No. 22 [71 Both Mustaqeem and Naqmddin are bmlhers and mu be relerred In as me mammvs heveefler [ax N01 Iona lhereaflerlhe Waxnmis‘ ialhar(F'V\l3) asked a bmkev1F\N2y «a max war a cum for com me land: [51 The make! mlmducad ma PIairmfls' famer la a prospectwe buyer caves: Dstzo‘ Safleh am Mohamed (‘Dam sauuaw) who agreed In Pumhase both me wands fur RM3 5 mm" nu] sum Dimes 2‘:/.1 agreed to mee| m we bmkefs house samanme Ill aany December 2015 «c discuss ma sale hansamiun The maaung |mk place an <1 <2 2013 it [he mama muse m Muar. [11] N we maaung P1a\rmflNaq|udd|n‘ » «amar, Dalo‘ SaHeh and ms lanu?/‘ one sauammam Em sam (“Sall:IwddIn savan and a lew !NYF9I§E/lk\3FMRNLlFw1Rw W. sum ...u.., Mu .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW: mm. VI arwuus rmm "B-IZNWC-Z’-awe 11 mm In my wdgmam. oeieneanc nas (ailed «a wave on me bihnne ol pruhabfliues mat ne has new |he sum mvsnpuo an (RM315,000.00 x 2; to me wznnmrs and or men fame! «mares me purchase at me Wands [1fl£]Ths Is lunhevfnnifle-1 by me Vac! (ha! n n \s (me (ha! Deveneann am indeed pay me purchase conslderabnn fnrme sum RM15u,nuu uuy suruly he would have munlerclawmed against me Flammls [or reluels in respecx ol me memes pan by mm am me ccun holes me: me neaenaanc aaes not have any ccunteldsxm agmns| me Plawnnfis (1 nn Next. mere was no Sale and Purchase Agvaamalll executed lay me pames and ms was cunfivmed uyme sohcmor 1Dw3) [1na)rr.e sahcitor (DW3) also (esnfied ma« he does m| xnew me purchase price for me L:m1s.A4:ouIdmg!a mm, hws Me was mevely In prepare an Vrravacable Power a! Attamey Io prulazx the Defendant‘: interest smee me Delendam had expended memes In nuvchae Ins Lands [1:19] ‘I: my pldgamslu ens eonemr (away as an Ammcane and SaHcnnr has a may (0 ensure that me purchase cunswderilinns var me Lands war: my pawd by me Defendant ee me Plawnmfs ana menu a wnnen cnnfxnnalwon lmm me Plainlrfls that «ney had reeewee me mamas belnre pmceeding In s4‘11udI:=(e me memovandum lransfur and plesentmg rt In me Land emee He eugm rm! «:7 have velted omy on the Delandsnl av whoever mslmcled mm on behalf at me Delendanl m rsspaen nl paymenx 0! me pmunase eenseeranens to me Pkawnmis sw yrnee.nsmnnuswzn.. T -we sum ...n.., wm .. wed In my me .nen.un mm mm. V1 gimme W.‘ u zmcvc no/mm E [11n1na»men wnen quesnonea by me cam, me sahcnnr (away confined mat he we not du se. x mm me sahmmv had venea to dlschama nu dunes cavalully and amgenny His wnduct as in Advocate and Sn1ic4|nrm enenmng «a me eanveyance of me Vanda bemeen me Ftainmve em me Defiandanlcanawmy eeus shun ergcm conveyancing Dvachce [111]Wha\ me ue1endam an was use me Power of Anomey exeemea by me Fhlnmfs In nenslev nne said land: mule mmsew by svgmng es lrinslemv and nansveree [11I]The Pawa ol Anurney makes no rnenman 01 any vamzhla conmereuen gwan by Ina Defendant |c me Pbwnmfs n mdead me purpose L7! me Panel at Anmmey was to serve as a sale and Purchase Agreement balwaen me names [113] The nnpugnea Power cl Niamey has no We M its own M aces nm eanver any pmpnemy "gm tn me Delendanl In Ngadr Apandl V Manenmm: Md/Qhsan L ors (201611 ms 174: Hws Lemsrnp Wan Ahmad Fand Wan Salleh JC (as he men was) held — "1151 A51 smdm my/uagmennn Meruemn mmssemn a Anar v Alzdul Remm Omar A. on 120151 5 cm 511 an irrevocable paws! ol attorney, even if to: vs:/uaws eonsmerenon vvilmn me meemng 0/5 a (.1! me Powers emmmey Act 4949‘ cannot be constmsdas e sale and purchase agreement wnh me neceswy essence and mgrudrsnls or a valid centric!" This Is more so when Ihsrs IS no fndtcsnon at en mar me FDA in me mstant !NYFDpgn/lk\3FMRNUFw1Rw E W. sum ...n.., wm .. used In my me mtgwnmy cum nnumenl VI ermine W.‘ IIa»=2~¢vc-17-Mfg? case. alleasfan the face air! '5 not a powelolettnmey for mluah/9 consiaerauon mm»: me meanmg ols. 5 [121 A power uvanomsy, no mattvrhow ms wards rhenzm are ouuched, does not have 1 me our; own 1: does no! confer any nmnnezary ngm to the dense rn Ftrslcresl Gmbal Lmzsa & Ors v /ndexra Assets Ltmrted & Dr: 12006) 1 ms 55, 1200515 ML./ 723 ca, James Faong JCA {.5 he liven ms) nu ds/rvenng me judgment if me Cmm afAppeaIs1atsd ms lawns follows Relusmg m concede, MrMa)vk mmaz argued that aside Im the Sale ofsharss Ag!-sem9rvL mm rs also me Power ounomey ms rnszmmenr grves wrsm powers to me appellants m respect al the disputed black olsnarss Butt! 1: my view that em: InsIrumsn!{PmwraVAm1mey) rs my a sunsmary document In me Sale :2! Shares Aglsemsnr Vlfimaul Phe Sale ofShares Agreement. which 5 the pmipsr mcrumenr. me Power al Atromey cmnorsunsm n does Ilakhavs 5 Mb ollts own /2 rs appendant M the sam 0/ Share: Agreement 5:: when the pnhcrpal agreement Denna: gm proprietary righflnlaw meme Powmlmcomsy, a subsldmy mnwenr, a/so mnlsm no such ngm." [m] In me circumstance‘ x mm me impugned Pamemmnamey ws my a subswdwzry Inslvumanl and not a Sale and Purchase Agreevnem my me Lands maecumains an we lawns and condmons larme sale S!N¥F0rgn/-kx3FMRNUFw1Rw 1 -W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. .m.u.y mm mm. V1 mums W.‘ (1151 The Delendsm had no ngm In use the impugned Powev omwney which had no valuable cunslderannn and which us nm a Sub and Purchase Aqrusmallt «u (ranflar me xanas m Tan AH Knw 5 Anal V. Tan Chem En 12015] 2 cu am, we Cowl av Appaax new as foHows- wz) Thu POA flrd no! mm any specmc reference to ms 13 lands. won were descnbsd as ‘pmpsmes' m the namrar ‘ ofme FDA Fulmermars, them was no mention m ms POA oiany valuable mvmdsralron bemg grwn by me raxpondsrvf to the firs! apps/Ian! rfmaeed me purpose 42/ ms POA was In Asrvs as 5 SPA between ms parties Although we POA came under me xmbn onne Powers olAr1amey Ad 194:, :2 was me Contracts Act 1950 Mulch ippltedm vww on»: /espondenfs cnnlsmian mar Ine ma could be mm as the a//sgad SPA rsducsd m wnnng mmbns, me FOA could nolstsnd as rr had vague zsnns and chscrspnncy amerinmons /1 was void for uncertamty, as pmwded undels an arms Contracts Ac! 195a The rssfimldanthad no nghl 10 use me POA, much was no! In SPA, lo zrmrsr Me rm appellant’: 1/: sha/s m the ten lands to muss»- [1 16] For me Ioregomg reasons, I find me wmpugrved Inavoume Power ol ‘ Anamey m both cases null and vnld [1111 Hence ms Msmovandum cl Translus (Form 14A)execuled by me Decenaam as (mnslemv and hznslerua usmg the impugned irrevocable Pawer L71 Allomey In bum cases rs null and you S!N¥FDrgn/-kx3FMRNL1Fw1Rw 1 -W. sum rumba! MU ... M In M, m. .mgm.m, «mm mm. VI mung W.‘ (1) (T) us znm mum [11l]lnlIgh|u1my above findmg, .n my judgement ma lrinsfer of F\aH'mIi Musxaqaanva Land m navanaam ws deiessnhle under Seclmn 340(2) (:3) mo (nayaau may on me ground n ma Ieginelsd using me Fewer ni Atlumay and Memarandum cl Tvansier wmch are vmd wnslmmenls [1151 semen 340 NLC (Revised 2020) ram» '34» Rugmnuan to confer indvf-Itlbh rm. :1! Interest, Ixclpt In cenain circumsllncns The we or Interest 9/ any person or body for me ma bsmg I-egtshvrsd as mupnetor ofany /am. or in whose name any lease, cnange or easement is for ma nma Demg nagmaraa, Mall, suhjecl to Ms lomvwvng pmymons allhts section, be mdeleamhle The true or Weiss! or any such pemzn or body shan not be tndsfuasmle (5) rn any use nuraud armlsreprsssntation to men the person orbody, Many aganconhe paraon at body, was a puny or pnvyr, or (n) vlmsrv rsgrslrslvon wa: oblamed bylorysry, orby means ofan Insummenl ar Vmd mslrumelvf,‘ or (c) wnana ma mle urlmsrast was umawmlly umulled by me person arbody m the purported axamsa av any paws! or aurnanry canlurred by any wmtsn raw srNvF0rgn/-mrmkuuiwzm T -W. sum ...n..n wm .. wed In my m. anwn mm anumeul V1 ermine pm]! Ila-zzncvcrzv wzuzu (3) More me we or Interns! al any person m body a defuastble by reason of any of the cnmnmancaa specmea m sulrsscfion (2)- (5) nsnalun /Lab/s to be selasrdein me hand: olsny person or body to whom I! may subsequermy be mansrermt; and (la) any mfurssf sumquenny granted mmom shall be name to be 32! made rn ma ham olunypelson orbody rn wnam ms (arms mna being mm. Pmvidsd lhal normng «n this sub-sscborl shill affect any we urmlerssf acqunaa by any pumnmnn good faith and rarvalm/e mnamranon, orby Mvypersorv orbody A:/atmfllg through orunoersuch a purchaser‘ [1201 Funher, in suppofl av my nnmng. 1 vary upon me demsxm ul ma count of Appeax m Five Siar Henlaga Sdn am 4 Or: y. Nat Mnn Silxmksh .4 Anal 1202515 cu 345‘ whavein n was new 'wn-mu Tn. Dacttinu OI Induluslb/Ilfy or me wow Prawn! nu Setting Mid: or The Reyirlrafinn D! The Land Now In rm Nam: OfFiI/e St! [37] Any Iransferalland nemunaar a public cnanzaue (rust wunam a pmpsrarld ya/ya court arderwuuldbq mm as caugm under ma pmhlbmon al a transfer under a Vaid or msulrmnr msmnnanr. The mslmmen! al Iransfsr m Fem: 14A urrderths Namnal Land Gods woman as i: am yrnau.nam»wswzn.. n -W. sum rumba! wm ... mud in navy m. nngmnuly wm nnummul VI mung W.‘ _ u zzmcvc 74:;/1:12:13 rs on a court oruartnamas been set asrda wou/d be vofd arrume rranslerthatnpurponed ea evlscl would have to na sat aside.‘ [I21|Ea1ava(he above aemsran, ma Feaarar Conn wn samuewark Sring mg v Pub/in Bank Bhd rzovsj 2 cm :44, (2015 5 ML./ v held as lalkams V (551 Under: 3w¢2;(e), the [Me arfmelsslolany person /or ma time being rsgtslarsd as prupnefor orany ananmaa ram shafl rml be lndehes/Me where the registration was omarrraa usmg an maumcaru ar mm instrumenl -[511 /n ‘Tsnum and Land Dsa/mgs m m Ms/ay States" by Dawn sv wong, at p 354 me author explained the phrase "msulficrent or van inslmmelvl" war the purpose als 340131») arms NLC as Ibllows‘- (M -/ruumcram or van: flvslmmenl" samn :v4o12)(z:; also prm/ides ma: a ragrstsmd We rs deleulble wnara regmrauor. was obtained ‘by means clan rnsulficrsrvf or void rnstmment“ L/nlffim "fargery', the expvusmnn 'insuII:ckmf or wild ins1rIImsnI" Is sa wide as m de/y campmlvenslvs enumerauorr ol ma circumstances In wmcn a purportedly executed mszrumen: al dealing rrray be regarded by the noun as -rrrsmmanr or Mud‘ some general abssrvafions may mdrcate how wrde rt: domain may be The /eference an M2 rrrsurrrcrerray and madness af an Instrument could Deflam to an SrNvF0rgn/-kx3FMRNL1FwzRw 1 ma. sum rumba! Mu a. mud in M, m. .mw., MW: nnumanl vn arms W.‘ suns ammumszaness and matters Ialahng Io ma axacunon olthe Insmlment V1/hers Ina Instrument is axaamamn pursuance als contract ofde5IIrIg, me Java/rdrty ofcontrncl {I s when: Ina cammnns mm; womd pIaInry anm that me instmmertl is vwd accnrdrngly rna I‘rIs[rumerIf may am be -Insmanr or "vmd' Ibr masons relalmg no me capauly al the perms concerned, or by Ieamn 0/ some (b(maIdeioc1urIrregI1lanq/ In addman, non corI'Ip/lance wmv relevant slatmury rsquirunwnts may alxn Issu/I In Me rnszmmanr being regarded as ‘I'rIsuMcrsrI!" or 'WId".' [1221 Eand on Ina ronegmng, ma PIBIHIMS have pmvan mair claim an ma balance M pmhabilmes DECISION (12:41 In cancmsian, ma Plammrs cIaIms In non: suns are hereby aHowed wi|h cost. [mun Ihe Plewmll (Mus1aqeem) cIaIm in sun No 27‘ I neraay declare Ina mpugnad Pnwer ouxmamay and me Memarandum aI Transfev IE mm and ma. Ina IegIsIraIIorI of mesa instruments wnn the Land omoe Ia be makea and canoeHed, Ina naIanaanu' nams on me We Ia be cancefled and ma PIaInmv (Muneqeenu) name In he reIrIs|aled as ma pvupneluv onne Iana aw Irnau.namanmzn.. -ma. Sum runny an a. mud a M, I... nIIgIu|HIy MW; mm. VI mans pmm wnv no/zun] [125]Whereas m wsmm (NsqmddAn‘s) dam m sml No 29‘ I hereby dedare me wmnugned Power ov Niamey ws mm and mm and us rswsuamon wnn [ha Land Oflilz m be revoked [125] I a\su gram a consequential Omedm Ihe Land Admmishzmrlo gwe elfec1 In my above Orders undev Secmn M7 av lhs Nations! Land Code 1965 Akewsea 202:7) mm ms 2u- Nuvember 2023 ac Muar nu ma Stale n¢Jnhare U. sunu KUMAR DJ PAUL Judima\ Commissioner Hm com amlalays Mum Jahore Damn Ta'zim Mahd Harmzl Em Mchd W501 Fovma n Indams ArrwAnuar Em AbdulGhaniw1(h Dzaku Emar Em emu, Mahzmad Hum: Em Mahmud @ Mahud and Anus Nur Ahkah Emu Ana Rahman !NYFflp§E/lk\3FMRNUFw1Rw “ W. sum ...m.., M“ .. wed » mm m. nngmuly MW; mm. VI muus NM! !NYFflpgn/lk\3FMRNUFw1Rw W. sum runny WW ... U544 u. «my n.. nH§\mH|V mm mm. Vfl mun: NM‘ Ila-zzNcvr.=z7rru/L021)“ Snl Eton: For me Pl mu Maura Rmynn Rnhim LAnacI:I¢s Advocaues .5 saumems No 42A .la\zn Abdul same 31 mo Jahur Bahru Johor [Rnl No. : an/co 1241/an-a2 &1zA2ma-oz: Emma Dalundam Mona Ami! Anuar s cu. Auvocaxes L salicuun No §A,Ja\an Tlmah Sari Kampung Kenangan Da(o'Orm1 aauun Batu Fahal Jahar [Flef. Nu. : AACOIBPICWIUSS 3. am] Having one . an“ Oclaber 2022‘ 2a“ Match 2023. 22'»! March 2023‘ «am my 2023, 9"‘Augus(2023‘ 10' August 2021 11“ September 2023 D: mion um 20"‘ Novemhev 2n2a |]n zncvc 7 on/znn] omar mawuals presumauy Dam‘ Sal|eh‘s beayguam were preserd («:1 In the ccurse at me meeting‘ a soucnnr, Muhd An! Bin Karmsan (um) humed\y dmpped by me hmkefls wwz) house amended tn the execuuun ave document by Plzmfifl Naqm and ‘aft. [131 Further durmg me meenng, Dale‘ Salleh handed a eneque for me sum of RM37fl,C|00 no m mom 0! me Plamlifls‘ father and Iransfened a lurlher sum av RM1D,000 oo mmna mm ma Pxammrs‘ ramewa awaum. [14] Upon handing avenue cheque lavme sum of RM:1u,ouo co m me P\aml1fls‘ fzlhev, Data‘ SaHeh inlurmed mm nm m can we cheque mm. me understanding he would gwe a replaeemem cheque to me P\ammI's (Amer [15] Duvmg ma auamng or me same day. me Plamhfis‘ father, Dale‘ sauen and Sallehuddm saca: met agam at Macdanakfs Pemznas skudau John: Duving ms maalmg, the same whcncr (uwa) zllendad In me execumn era document by Plalnml Muslaqeem [16] M w: non m mspme lhanhe Plammfs‘ lalhev had depcsiledthe angmax we deeds for new wands m be kept by me sulic\k1r(DW3)on(?Ie same day [171 Theveamer, neither me P\ainM‘s nor mew lalhev vecewed any paymem cl we purchase was apan lmm me RMWUJIDOGO lranslervsd nnhne hy Dam‘ Salleh aw yrnaummmuswzm - -mu. sum ...m, M“ be wed in mu me nflgmnuly MW; nnunvmul VI muua W.‘ [15] n \s not .n mspuxe mm me eneque cm the sum Rmammm an vms never cashed and cleared m we P1a|n|rffs‘lalhaHs aocuunl us) Samemme an 31 32012, me Piainms gm Io knaw me ‘and was csvealed by an: Ayah Bm Mustzpa @ Muslala. ma Defendant upon mnaueung a and aeamn as a reaun at Wares! mwn by a develnvev m «mg a low vennue m vespect M the Pl3m(Ms' Lanas mu This we: tn me Prainms zpp4ymg la remuve the Prwa|e Czvea|s by way av a Coun Oldev and suhsequenuy Vodgmg Pnvate Cavea|s lu nrmecn their Interest [21] The Calm Ovders furme runI:7va\ aims Devenuanrs Private cauaax were ubtamed and \n we course or regssleflng nnese omen. n came to ugh! that mamun MusLaqeem's xana hid nlleaay heen transferred unto the Defendant's name using an mevucame Pweramnernay [22] wnereas F-Iammv Naqmddws lam was yet «a be Iranslerred mi True was when ma P\am|Wfs knew luv me firs! me me exxstence or an Ivrevocable Power at Anomey puvpurledly execuled by mam In lavour :4 me Delendaru [241 The P\amnW: and cnewvamer do not know me Defendarfl [25] The nerenaanrs vevsmn a ma« he gm know ham one Mahamad Faeez Amrml am Mnhd Faun (“Faeez Amnur), new sauen and Sallehuddm Sa|ar man lha| me lands were lur sa\e by me owners syn Wflrgn/-mrmkuurwzm — -mu. sum lumber wm e. wed e mu he .nun.ny Wm anumanl VI arwuws rum ll zzncv: 704/zany E [25] Amummg In Delermsnt (um), nne P\a\nt1l|:' father requested for caen payment and me sale and pmchase uansman in be ma 2. Power omxomey co svmd Real Pmpeny same Tax [271 Defendant was Informed by FaeezArmml (snzy m eany November 2013 that me P\amIWls' father had asked la! a mmnulmenl lee av RMWOJJOO no. we sum was wuhdrawn by Delendanl «um ms hank aacmml and handed In Fseez Amlml‘ Dalo‘ sauen ana Sallehuddm Salavln be pan: la Lhe Plamlfis' tamer [231 Based an we purponed mean payment av amoo,oon an‘ Defendant Vndged pnvale caveats on man Lands [:5] The Defendam was duly iniurmai by Fzeez Amznn (uwzp and me soucwof Iowa) me: me Ftsxnhfls had execulad me Pwer of Ancmey [an] wammve commenced ms acnon agamex Defendant |u dedzre me Inemcame Puwev ammney as mm and vmd {:1} In sum No 27 Pmnumusnaqeem, also urayeou me aanaanauen oi the Ibegslvalnn ol lhe transfer of ma end who De1endanl‘t name [:11 Apan [mm me maunms, me vemammg wnnmes A1|he(n:\ were common wwnesses gwmg mnna: ewdence In new cases ISSUES to as nzrsrmnusn [:31 m my mew me lollawmg xssues need |o be delermmed — !NYF9I§E/lk\3FMRNLlFw1Rw E ‘Nab: e.nn runner wm .. we be my me mtgwnnuly Wm nnumeul VI muus tmm u zzucvn: nA/2:121] E (i) wneme: Phswnufls ranea in plead lrzmd, on whether Hslrmfis executed in mevocable Power cmnomey in mam rn Defendantiar me 5212 aims Lands, Iv u was my exsculsd, x: the Vrrevocahle Pawet ofA|1nmEy vahdn Whemev (have was any Sz\e and Purchase Agreement exscnled by me P\am|WI: and Defendant fur me sale av me Lands. M Whelhenheru was any mnswderahon pan: tonne purchase oi the Wind‘ as me Plawrmfls M lheir tanner. ANALYSIS AND FINDING Whalhnr PI-/nllfl: mm: to plud new or mans oflnud [34] Ddendams submillhal the Plamlflfs hzvu lafled la p\ead fraud and uetaus w «aw. [as] When-ms me P\ainINls suhmn that men chum ws prermsed an ch2Heng\ng me valldxly ov me memanle Power ul Altomey execmad by lhem wn favour oune Derendam and me Memorandum of Transfer executed by the Delendanl using me sand Power ol Altomey ca xmnscerme lands k: the Delendams and m aeenane me same as null and vmd syn yrnaa.nam»wswzm — -me s.nn ...n.., wm .. ma he may we mtgwmuly MW; nnumeul VI muws rmm 04/2011] [35] 4 nave perused waugn me Plamufls‘ Statement ev clenrr. \ find me Pternmv vlezded dalm e «e sel esrde (he Ivansfev dune Lands that was done by usmg void rnsnnrrnencs [371 In urns errcurnsranee, I find no menl rn me Decendanrs ergumenc lflhatner mlnwand hi: broom uncured urn Vrruvocible Power er Attarney [ma] P\amlMi weed rn mew svaremem uVC\iAm mar may never execuxed the impugned Pwer nlAIIomey [as] Apen vrern me denran rn men (ashmcny me: me signarnre appealing m we rmpugrred Pwer nmnerney rs not mane. no amer evidence was prenered by Flalnmflo snow men men sxgnimves were luvged [An] wnerees Delendanl ued me sanener (oway who prepared the rmpugnefl Fewer e1 Anorney and allesled In one Plalrmfls and ergnanrre re pmve me Pvwer 0! Altumey was dmy execmed by me P\aIrmff$. [A1] To cnrmburale [ms reel, Delandam pmduoefl a med recardrng af Plzmnfl Muslaqeem srgnnrg e dacumem in me presence cl nne :a|I::\mf1DW3)al Mananald-s Pecnanes Skud n M 12 mm (421 The admrssrmhfy Mme video rscmdmg is challenged by me Plainwl because one tecummg and saund are non deav V! was Ihen marked as ID 11 and merrenseripnan anne ednversenon lvam the rewmmg was marked as u: 12 NYFDpgn/Ik\3FMRNUFw1Rw E ear. sum umber Mu be used I» may me nngmnuly wms anumeul VI erxuws em Ncv: U 4/Ion! [431 whereas fur Pnsrrrm Naqluddm, nererrdshc produced pheregraphs cl mm srgrrrrrg a d<x:AmenI In me presence of me sahcmov (owe; er the brokers (Pvm house drrnng the meahng oh 11 12 zma These mraxagraphs were marked ma 1: .5 2) [u] The Conn finds that even wnhaur me evvdence or me vvden recaldwg and ma phmegraghs, Defendant has succeeded m prwmg (hi! the signature sppaanrrg on the rrrrpughed Power ol Attorney belongs to Pwsrhuns based an my reasons given bekww [45] \ find man Plalmwl Musrzqeerrr dunng hrs ems:-axarmnanon agreed man he had srghea me rmpugrred Power or Amrrrey when rr was referred In mm Hrs ewdence is reproduced below — “Fm: Encrk Mustaqeerrr psmah mnoarangen surzll Kuisa mkfi Rlquk muka sum? 4, 5, 6, 7 Bundle c Pohon rererrrrukesurez 7 aurrdre c den Pervyata SaksiPWS- v muka sure: 9? sp-v Pemah sign “ [Please ses page 3 rrorss devrdsncs] [45] whereas Pnernxm Naqiuddm a\sa agreed he had execumd the rrrrpugrred Power 0! Niamey when the photographs D1311 a. 2) were referred rd mm. Hrs evidence rr vanruduced belmid ‘PD-1 Pads mukssurst gambar A can a lengah menandalanganfdckumsn’ srzr semru sm rrneu.hsrrmrmzn.. - -we SEH|VlHlV1hE!MHb¢ H544 In my me srrwrr we Hannah! VI HVLING perm pm Ervc»6< melvandafangam‘ sxw er hadapalv yang name AnfBm Kamrsan? SP-1, Selulu - [Please see page 9 mes afevidsncsj [471 The tesnmony anne suesung salu::(nr(DW3y (ha! he had vnxnessea me aecumn allne Irrevtxzhle Power nl Anamey by me P\ainlMs which e crucial vemzms unchallenged own was never challenged by me P m dunng omseexemxnanon me: me signature appearmg on me urnpugnea Pew-e« or Anorney dues nm bemng in me Plalnnfis n was nL7| pm In ow: men ne never zIIe§|ed «a me Walnlwfis‘ signamre [451 In aaaman, flurmg oval suhrmssmns m cmm, weemea caunse1 (arm: F1amM1s xzndwdiy unneeded that me P me are not dlsputmg men me mgnenuna appeanng \n ma wmpugned Fawer o1A|(erney -e Vurged or Mswied [49] Whanhe P ' ms uonlend mnacma nurnorled dacumentexaculad by them ws a Sale and Purchase agreement and at no pom m me :1»: may agree |o exeeme en lrlevncable Paws! nlAIn:mey [so] In omev vmrds‘ me P\ammfls are only alreckmg «ne vdenmy of me aacunuenx signed hy mem em xney do not deny namng swgned a documerw wwlnessefl by |he snficxmv ow: 151} In me mvcumslanues‘ I find me Power at Anamey was Indeed execuned by me P|amMs « ¥F0r§n/Ikw3FMRNUFw1Rw “- -m. sum ...n.., wm .. wed In my me .nen.n-y Wm mm. VI erxuus rum

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-22NCvC-361-09/2022

PLAINTIF ABDUL KADIR BIN HAJI SHEIKH FADZIR DEFENDAN 1. ) MENARA JUTAMAS SDN BHD 2. ) AMCORP GLOBAL LIMITED (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI TEE LAND LIMITED)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out- Action- Action premised on setting aside the judgment of Court of Appeal- Res judicata-Allegation that the High Court and Court of Appeal were fraudulently or negligently misled- -Whether causes of action similar-Whether parties similar-Whether matters and issues in the present action ventilated in previous proceedings- Whether case caught by res judicata-Allegation of fraud-Whether there is actual positive fraud-Evidence Act 1950, s.44

21/12/2023

YA Puan Jamhirah binti Ali

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=04e30ab2-2d81-42c8-b17e-bcaf200f2789&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT NO.: BA-22NCvC-361-09/2022 BETWEEN ABDUL KADIR BIN HAJI SHEIKH FADZIR (NRIC NO.: 390604-02-5003) …PLAINTIFF AND 1. MENARA JUTAMAS SDN. BHD. (Company No.: 1003988-P) 2. AMCORP GLOBAL LIMITED (Previously known as Tee Land Limited) (Singapore Company No.: 201230851-R) …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT INTRODUCTION 1. This is the Defendants’ application in enclosure 9 to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Order 18 rule 19 (1) (b) and (d) and/or the inherent powers of the Court under the Rules of Court 2012. 2. The Plaintiff, a prominent businessman and former Minister, faced a judgment against him on 16.05.2019, stemming from an appeal 21/12/2023 08:35:58 BA-22NCvC-361-09/2022 Kand. 39 S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 (Appeal No.: B-02(NCVC)(W)-715-04/2018) to the Court of Appeal. The court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants RM9,172,710.00, along with interest and costs (the Judgment Sum). 3. Despite the Defendants' demand on 24.05.2019, the Plaintiff failed to settle the Judgment Sum. Instead, the Plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court (the Leave Application). On 17.6.2021, the Federal Court dismissed the Leave Application. 4. As the Plaintiff continued to neglect to settle the Judgement Sum, the Defendants, on 03.06.2022, had to apply for a bankruptcy notice and seek leave to commence bankruptcy proceedings in Sungai Petani High Court (the Bankruptcy Proceedings). These proceedings were later transferred to the Kuala Lumpur High Court by consent on 26.07.2022. 5. During the case management on 11.08.2022, the Plaintiff requested a 2-month extension to file an affidavit opposing the Bankruptcy proceedings. However, the High Court denied the request and directed the Plaintiff to file the affidavit on 12.09.2022. 6. Subsequently, on 06.09.2022, over three years after the original judgment, the Plaintiff initiated the current action to set aside the 16.05.2019 judgment granted by the Court of Appeal in favour of the Defendants. In this present action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have fraudulently or negligently misled the courts in earlier proceedings, centred on a guarantee and indemnity executed in favour of Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 7. The Defendants only became aware of this action through an affidavit filed by the Plaintiff in support of an application to set aside the bankruptcy notice on 06.09.2022. Service of the Writ and Statement of Claim on the 1st Defendant’s registered office occurred almost a month later, on 04.10.2022. 8. The Defendants contend that the allegations in the present action have been or could have been raised in earlier proceedings. 9. Therefore, the pivotal question in this application is whether the Plaintiff's current action falls under the doctrine of res judicata, rendering it an obviously unsustainable action. BRIEF FACTS 10. The said judgment stemmed from a legal action initiated by the Defendants herein in Shah Alam High Court Civil Suit No.: BA- 22NCVC-99-02/2015 (Suit 99) dated 27.02.2015, against Sazean Development Sdn. Bhd. (currently in liquidation) (Sazean) and the Plaintiff. 11. In Suit 99, the Defendants sought various reliefs, including the refund of a deposit paid under a Confirmation of Sale dated 25.11.2013 (Confirmation of Sale) between Sazean and the 2nd Defendant. This agreement involved the sale of 26 pieces of freehold land in Klang owned by Sazean to the 2nd Defendant or its nominee. 12. As per the Confirmation of Sale, the Plaintiff guaranteed Sazean's compliance with its terms and conditions, undertaking to indemnify S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 the purchaser against losses resulting from Sazean's failure to comply. 13. On 08.01.2014, the 1st Defendant, nominated as the purchaser by the 2nd Defendant, entered into a formal sale and purchase agreement with Sazean (SPA), paying a 10% deposit of RM9,172,710.00 to Sazean (Deposit). 14. Due to Sazean's failure to fulfill the conditions under the SPA on 28.05.2014, the Defendants terminated the SPA and requested a refund of the Deposit, which Sazean refused. 15. Consequently, the Defendants initiated Suit 99 against Sazean and the Plaintiff for the Deposit refund. 16. On 28.02.2018, the High Court dismissed the Defendants' claim, finding that although the Plaintiff provided the Guarantee and Indemnity, Sazean was entitled to forfeit the Deposit. The Plaintiff did not contest any part of the decision. 17. Unsatisfied, the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the Plaintiff's liability under the Guarantee and Indemnity was extensively argued. Notably, during the Appeal, the Plaintiff did not allege fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation regarding the High Court's decisions. 18. On 16.05.2019, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision, entering judgment in favour of the Defendants. The Court S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 of Appeal held that the Plaintiff, who guaranteed for Sazean, was liable to the Defendants for the Deposit. 19. Subsequently, on 14.06.2019, Sazean and the Plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court, raising legal questions, including those related to the Plaintiff's liability under the Guarantee and Indemnity. 20. On 17.06.2021, the Federal Court dismissed the Leave Application after hearing full submissions, where once again, the Plaintiff did not allege fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation concerning the decisions of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. THE LAW 21. The principles of law on striking out of pleadings are trite and well- settled. The Court’s power to strike out a claim should be exercised sparingly. The test for striking out is laid down in the case of Bandar Builder Sdn. Bhd. & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd. (1993) 3 MLJ 36, the Supreme Court held that this summary procedure could only be exercised when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it is plain and ‘obviously unsustainable’. The Court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action, or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious, or that the defences raised are not arguable. This principle has been reiterated in a plethora of cases. (see: Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn. Bhd. v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor (2016) 3 MLJ 1; Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v Che S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors (2012) 1 MLJ 473, CA; Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu v Ganesan a/l Retanam (2011) 6 MLJ 70, CA) FINDINGS OF THE COURT 22. Upon perusal of the cause papers filed by the parties and having considered the written and oral submissions by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is evident that the Plaintiff’s case is plainly and obviously unsustainable and is liable to be struck out. This conclusion stems from the fact that the issues raised by the Plaintiff fall under the doctrine of res judicata. My reasons are expounded below. 23. The Plaintiff contends that his action herein encompasses multiple causes of action, including, but not limited to, allegations of fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation. Additionally, the case raises a significant question of law for adjudication. The Plaintiff argues that the present action is not subject to the doctrine of res judicata, emphasising that there are unresolved questions requiring determination by this Court. It is asserted that all contentious facts and legal issues are more appropriately examined during the trial through witness testimonies and document disclosure rather than summary disposal. 24. In this present action, the Plaintiff maintains that prior to entering the sale and purchase agreement, negotiations were conducted with the 2nd Defendant, Tee Land Limited (as known at that time), as evidenced by the Letter of Confirmation of Sale. S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 25. During this phase, the Plaintiff agreed to execute a guarantee and indemnity in favour of the intended Purchaser of the Lands. Initially informed that Tee Land Limited would not be the Purchaser, but Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. The Plaintiff executed a Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity in favour of Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. 26. Subsequently, it was conveyed that Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. would not be the Purchaser, and the 1st Defendant, Menara Jutamas Sdn. Bhd. would assume this role. The Plaintiff contends that there is no correspondence confirming this change, and consequently, no new guarantee and indemnity were executed in favour of the 1st Defendant. 27. The Plaintiff argues that, at all relevant times, the guarantee and indemnity were intended for the initial Purchaser, Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd., known to the Plaintiff during the execution. The Plaintiff asserts that there was no intention to provide a guarantee and indemnity to the 1st Defendant, as the Plaintiff was unaware of their role as the Purchaser of the Lands. 28. Therefore, the Plaintiff maintains that the 1st Defendant, being a third party to the Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity, lacks the right to enforce it against the Plaintiff. 29. Moreover, the Plaintiff insists that the issue in this present action - whether the Plaintiff provided a guarantee and indemnity to the 1st Defendant, was not raised for determination in Suit 99. The focus of Suit 99 was primarily on Sazean's liability for compensating the Defendants for breaching the Sale and Purchase Agreement. It was S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 consequentially ordered that the Plaintiff was liable due to the execution of the Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity. 30. The Plaintiff underscores that at no point did the parties or the Court deliberate on the Plaintiff not providing a guarantee and indemnity to the 1st Defendant as the Purchaser of the Lands, confirming that the indemnity was exclusively granted to Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. 31. On the contrary, the Defendants argue that this present action is merely a stratagem devised by the Plaintiff to get another chance to challenge the judgment, which was validly and properly obtained. They assert that this action is plainly and obviously unsustainable in both fact and law and should be struck out. 32. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff exhausted all appeal options, presenting the same liability issues under the Guarantee and Indemnity to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. Notably, the Plaintiff, with legal representation, attended the Federal Court proceedings without raising any claims of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. 33. Moreover, the Defendants claim that the timing of the present action, initiated over three years after the judgment and concurrently with the pending Bankruptcy Proceedings, raises suspicions. It coincides with the period when the Plaintiff was expected to file his affidavit opposing the Defendants' application for leave to commence Bankruptcy Proceedings, introducing allegations of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 34. Emphasising the Plaintiff's failure to plead material facts with adequate specifics regarding the alleged fraud, the Defendants note the absence of details on how, when, where, or in what manner the purported fraud occurred. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's broad accusation that the Defendants failed to clarify the award of the Guarantee and Indemnity to Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd., not nominated by the 2nd Defendant according to the Confirmation of Sale, lacks specificity. 35. The Defendants argue that such a vague allegation falls short of the necessary standard to sustain a fresh action impeaching a judgment. They stress that the Plaintiff must present their case rather than attribute blame to the Defendants for their failure to do so. Furthermore, they highlight the Plaintiff's active involvement and legal representation throughout the proceedings. 36. The Defendants assert that it has always been the Defendants’ case that they are entitled to take benefit of the Guarantee and Indemnity which was given by the Plaintiff to guarantee Sazean’s performance of the Confirmation of Sale. 37. Consistently asserting their entitlement to benefit from the Guarantee and Indemnity given by the Plaintiff to ensure Sazean's compliance with the Confirmation of Sale, the Defendants underscore that the Plaintiff has not alleged any suppression of material facts or evidence not presented in previous proceedings. It is acknowledged that the Plaintiff has not introduced any additional evidence, relying solely on the identical documents submitted and reviewed by the Courts in previous proceedings. The Defendants S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 refer to the Court of Appeal case of Pembangunan Tanah dan Perumahan Sdn. Bhd. v Raja Qahaarruddin bin Raja Abdul Aziz [2020] 2 MLJ 462 to support this position, 38. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's claim that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were fraudulently or negligently misled as to the beneficiary of the Guarantee and Indemnity lacks credibility. If such a serious allegation were valid, the Plaintiff should have raised it at the earlier proceedings, not three years after the Judgment was delivered. According to the Defendants, this indicates the absence of any fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation on their part. 39. After examining the Plaintiff's claim in the current action and the cause papers from Suit 99, which were presented in the Defendants' affidavits, it is crucial to note that the parties in Suit 99 were Menara Jutamas Sdn. Bhd. as the 1st Plaintiff and Tee Land Limited as the 2nd Plaintiff, against Sazean Development Sdn. Bhd. as the 1st Defendant and Abdul Kadir Bin Haji Sheikh Fadzir as the 2nd Defendant. Therefore, except for Sazean, the parties in the present action and Suit 99 are the same. 40. I find that the material facts pleaded in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim herein pertain to matters that were previously litigated and conclusively decided in Suit 99. Issues related to the beneficiaries of the Guarantee and Indemnity and the Defendants' rights to enforce it against the Plaintiff were raised, discussed, and conclusively settled in Suit 99. S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 41. Referring to the Statement of Agreed Facts in Suit 99, it was acknowledged that the Defendants were the beneficiaries of the Guarantee and Indemnity. This admission was undisputed by the Plaintiff in Suit 99. The Statement of Agreed Facts filed for trial is reproduced below: “11. The beneficiaries of the Confirmation of Sale and the Guarantee and Indemnity are the Plaintiffs. 12. Pursuant to the Confirmation of Sale and the Guarantee and Indemnity, the 1st Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant entered into a formal sale and purchase agreement dated 8.1.2014 (the “Sale Agreement”) 13. The Guarantee and Indemnity extends to the Sale Agreement.” [emphasis added] 42. However, despite being a mutually agreed fact and in contrast to their pleaded case, the Plaintiff still attempted to contest the enforceability of the Guarantee and Indemnity against him, both in the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. 43. During the Court of Appeal proceedings, the Plaintiff's counsel contended that the Defendants are not entitled to benefit from the Guarantee and Indemnity since it was specifically granted to Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd., not the Defendants. This is the identical issue the Plaintiff is currently raising in the present action. An excerpt from the written submission of the Plaintiff's counsel is provided below: S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “b) If Yang Arif-Yang Arif were to look at the Letter of Guarantee and Indemnity it was executed between Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. and the 2nd Defendant (page 96 of CB). The 2nd gave the guarantee and indemnity to Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. (840093-U) and NOT to the 1st Plaintiff or the 2nd Plaintiff. 2nd Plaintiff is a company registered in Singapore with Singapore company registration no. 201230851-R and totally different from Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. which is registered in Malaysia. Accordingly, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff cannot take benefit and sue on the said guarantee and indemnity as they are not the beneficiaries of the same. On this score alone, the appeal against the 2nd Defendant must be dismissed irrespective what is the outcome of the appeal against the 1st Plaintiff.” [emphasis added] 44. It is evident from the Records of Appeal, that all documents were placed before the Court of Appeal. Having considered the parties' submissions and the Appeal Records, the Court of Appeal granted the Defendants’ appeal. Judgment was rendered in favour of the Defendants. In determining the Plaintiff's liability due to Sazean's wrongful forfeiture of the Deposit, the Court of Appeal interpreted the explicit terms outlined in the Guarantee and Indemnity as follows: “[28] The issues before this court are as follows: (a) Whether the plaintiffs’ notice of termination was invalid and bad in law? and (b) Whether D2 is liable for the non-performance of the D1? … S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [37] For issues (b), it is not disputed that D2 had executed the guarantee and indemnity in favour of the P2. He was also, at the time, the executive chairman and director of D1. The relevant clause of the guarantee and indemnity is as follows: “…guarantee the due performance and compliance of the terms and conditions of the confirmation of Sale by the Vendor and further undertake to indemnify the Purchaser against all losses and expenses, including legal costs on a full indemnity basis, charges and damages incurred or suffered by the Purchaser in consequence of any failure by the Vendor to perform or comply with the and conditions of the Confirmation of Sale or resulting from any breach non-performance or non-observance by the Vendor and contained in the Confirmation of Sale” [38] Furthermore, paragraph 3.3.10 of the Letter of Confirmation of Sale provides as follows… Based upon these two documents, D2 having personally guaranteed for D1 and to indemnify P2, is therefore also liable to indemnify P2 for the deposits paid. ” [emphasis added] 45. It is pertinent to note that the Court of Appeal found that the Plaintiff in the present action was liable to indemnify the 2nd Defendant in the present action pursuant to the Confirmation of Sale and the Guarantee and Indemnity. S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 46. I further refer to the Plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The questions of law framed by the Plaintiff for the Federal Court’s consideration, amongst others, are as follows- (a) “Whether the surety is discharged under Section 86 of the Contract Act 1950 if the creditor varies the terms of the contract between the creditors and principal debtor company without the surety’s consent even though the surety was acting on behalf of the principal debtor company in executing the said contract.” (b) “Whether a party or creditor can take benefit of the guarantee if the guarantee was expressly given by the surety to 3rd party and not to the party or creditor consideration to the guarantee having regard to s 77 and s 79 of the Contracts Act 1950.” 47. In support of the Plaintiff’s Leave Application, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted in paragraph 20 of the Plaintiff’s Written Submission dated 06.01.2021, as follows: “THE 2ND DEFENDANT’S POSITION AS GUARANTOR 20. We humbly submit that the 2nd Defendant should not be liable as a guarantor as the letter of Guarantee and Indemnity was given by the 2nd Defendant to Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. and not either of the Plaintiff.” [emphasis added] S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 48. Further in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the Plaintiff’s Written Submission dated 06.01.2021, the same issue was raised again: “D2’S LIABILITY UNDER THE GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY 68. We humbly submit that D2 is not liable under the guarantee and indemnity because D2 executed the same in favour of a company known as Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. and not in favour of P1 or P2. This can be seen from the guarantee and indemnity itself at page 174 CB. The letter of guarantee and indemnity was addressed to Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. and not to P1 or P2. Tee Resources Sdn. Bhd. is not a party to this suit. P1 and P2 cannot take benefit of the guarantee and indemnity.” [emphasis added] 49. The Federal Court, however, did not grant the Plaintiff the leave to appeal. 50. Hence, it is evident that the matters and issues brought forth by the Plaintiff in the present action are the same and were previously raised, discussed, and conclusively decided in Suit 99, constituting res judicata. 51. It is trite that the Defendants should not face double vexation, and the Plaintiff is prohibited from re-litigating identical issues in this action, using the pretext of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. In the locus classicus case of Asia Commercial S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Finance (M) Berhad v. Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd., [1995] 3 CLJ 783 the Supreme Court held: - “On the other hand, the issue estoppel literally means simply an issue which a party is estopped from raising in a subsequent proceeding. However, the issue estoppel, in a nutshell, from a consideration of case law, means in law a lot more ie. that neither of the same parties or their privies in a subsequent proceeding is entitled to challenge the correctness of the decision of a previous final judgment in which they, or their privies, were parties. This sounds like explaining a truism, but it is the corollary from that statement that is all important and that could have given birth to the controversies alluded to above; the corollary being that neither of such parties will be allowed to adduce evidence or advance any argument to contradict such decision. In this respect, we respectfully agree with Peter Gibson J in Lawdor v. Gray [1984] 3 All ER 345, 350 who said: “Issue estoppel... prevents contradiction of a previous determination, whereas cause of action estoppel prevents reassertion of the cause of action” [emphasis added] 52. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the filing of this action is inevitable because the issues raised in this action, i.e. whether a third party can enforce a guarantee and indemnity that was not given to it, was not raised, deliberated or decided in Suit 99. I find this issue should have been raised in Suit 99, as it existed then. The Plaintiff is precluded from commencing a new action to litigate the issue that he had neglected to raise in Suit 99. As decided in the case of Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v. Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd. (supra) the principle of res judicata not only applies to issues S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 which have been raised and decided, but it also covers the issues which might have been raised and which were not raised in the previous action either deliberately or due to negligence or inadvertence, though not decided by the court. It is public policy that there should be a finality in litigation to prevent abuse of the process. The Federal Court in Lin Wen-Chih & Anor v Pacific Forest Industries Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [2023] MLJU 1770 upheld the trite principle in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v. Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd. (supra) and held as follows: “[35] The Supreme Court preferred the view that issues which might have been and which were not brought forward, either deliberately or due to negligence or inadvertence, though not actually decided by the court, are still covered by the doctrine of res judicata. The justification for holding to such view is, as aptly stated that: “…it represents for one thing, a correct even though broader approach to the scope of issue estoppel. It is warranted by the weight of authorities to be illustrated later. It is completely in accord or resonant with the rationales behind the doctrine of res judicata, in other words, with the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatum. It is particularly important to bear in mind the question of the public policy that there should be finality in litigation in conjunction with the exploding population; the increasing sophistication of the populace with the law and with the expanding resources of the courts being found always one step behind the resulting increase in litigation.” … S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [46] To conclude, we think it is appropriate to cite a passage by Lord Shaw (delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee) in Hoystead v. Taxation Commissioner [1926] A.C. 155 in respect of the application of res judicata, in the following statement: “In the opinion of their Lordships it is settled, first, that the admission of a fact fundamental to the decision arrived at cannot be withdrawn and a fresh litigation started, with a view of obtaining another judgment upon a different assumption of fact; secondly, the same principle applies not only to an erroneous admission of a fundamental fact, but to an erroneous assumption as to the legal quality of that fact. Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigations because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the Court of the legal result either of the construction of the documents or the weight of certain circumstances. If this were permitted litigation would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted. It is a principle of law that this cannot be permitted, and there is abundant authority reiterating that principle. Thirdly, the same principle - namely, that of setting to rest rights of litigants, applies to the case where a point, fundamental to the decision, taken or assumed by the plaintiff and traversable by the defendant, has not been traversed. In that case also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken. S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 The same principle of setting parties’ rights to rest applies and estoppel occurs.” [emphasis added] 53. The doctrine of res judicata also extends to the Plaintiff's assertion that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were misled either fraudulently or negligently regarding the beneficiary of the Guarantee and Indemnity. These issues should have been raised in Suit 99, and the Plaintiff's failure to do so now prohibits him from re- litigating these matters. Significantly, there were no allegations of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation made by the Plaintiff throughout the different court instances when Suit 99 was adjudicated. 54. Further, I agree with the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded material facts with specific details concerning the alleged fraud committed by the Defendants, preventing the Plaintiff from presenting his case at each tier in the previous proceedings. The Plaintiff has not specified the how, when, where, and in what manner the Defendants purportedly engaged in the alleged fraud. It is a well-established principle of law that allegations of fraud must be particularised and specified. 55. It is trite that once a regularly obtained judgment has been perfected, the Court is functus officio, and the matter cannot be re-litigated. The matter in Suit 99 was appealed and affirmed right up to the Federal Court. Hence, the matters and issues raised in Suit 99 cannot be revisited or reasserted under any guise in a subsequent proceeding. This was decided by the Federal Court in the case of Serac Asia S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Sdn. Bhd. v Sepakat Insurance Brokers Sdn. Bhd. [2013] 5 MLJ 1. The Federal Court held: [44] We conclude by saying that once a regularly obtained order or judgment has been perfected, the court is functus officio. The matter as decided vide encl 6 is thus res judicata and cannot be re-litigated. It needs to be emphasised that the order made under encl 6 was appealed and affirmed right up to the Federal Court. It cannot now be revisited or reasserted under any guise in a subsequent proceeding. The issues raised by the respondent in encl 29 could have been brought up during the appeal process. The law does not allow the respondent to have a second bite of the cherry and in the manner as it did. This passage from Tenaga Berhad explains the rationale:… … In our judgment too, the re-litigation of a regularly and properly concluded matter as determined by the court is prohibited by the wide doctrine of res judicata. The judicial process rests on the twin pillars of certainty and finality. A final order or a judgment must therefore be vigorously protected by this doctrine, a position taken by the common law courts ever since Henderson (1843). [emphasis added] 56. Thus, a judgment obtained in due course can only be impeached or set aside when a party seeking to do so meets the rigorous criteria outlined in section 44 of the Evidence Act 1950 and establishes the presence of actual positive fraud practiced upon the court. The Federal Court in Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn. Bhd. v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor [2016] 3 MLJ 1 held: S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 “[39] Our view is that the fraud of which s 44 of the Act speaks refers to an actual fraud and not constructive fraud ie fraud practised by the other side must have prevented the respondents from placing their case before the court. [40] The fraud must be actual positive fraud, a meditated and intentional contrivance to keep the parties and the court in ignorance of the decree by the contrivance (see Patch v Word). [41] The earlier judgment cannot be impeached or set aside on a mere general allegation of fraud. It must be shown with sufficient details how, when, where and in what way the alleged fraud was committed. [emphasis added] 57. In the present action, I find that the Plaintiff has significantly failed to meet the high threshold to impeach or set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal based on fraud. This is attributed to the Plaintiff’s failure to sufficiently plead material facts with specific details regarding the alleged fraud committed by the Defendants, preventing the Plaintiff from presenting his case at each tier in the previous proceedings. 58. Upon reviewing the Plaintiff's current claim and the cause papers in Suit 99, I agree with the Defendants' assertion that the initiation of this action by the Plaintiff lacks bona fides. The Plaintiff has instituted this present action, ostensibly alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation by the Defendants without any particularisation and specification, and has raised issues that were previously addressed and decided or should have been raised in Suit 99. As S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 argued by the Defendants, it is evident that the filing of this action serves the collateral purpose of thwarting the ongoing Bankruptcy Proceedings. Therefore, it constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. 59. It is trite that such action, not brought in bona fide for obtaining genuine relief but instead for an ulterior or collateral purpose is liable to be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court (see: Boo Are Ngor v. Chua Mee Liang [2009] 6 CLJ 617; Tractors Malaysia Bhd. v Tio Chee Hing [1975] 2 MLJ 1; Datuk Haji Ishak bin Ismail v Kenanga Investment Bank Bhd. & Ors [2012] 7 MLJ 840). 60. This Court has considered the authorities relied upon by the Plaintiff in his submission namely Chee Pok Choy & Ors v Scotch Leasing Sdn. Bhd. [2001] 4 MLJ 346, Chong Kew v Leow Lay & Ors [2008] 6 MLJ 781, Tong Lee Hwa & Anor v Lee Yoke San [1979] 1 MLJ 24 and Sykt Sebati Sdn. Bhd. v Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan & Anor [2019] 2 MLJ 689 concerning the doctrine of res judicata. In alignment with the Defendants' argument, this Court agrees that the authorities cited by the Plaintiff are not relevant to the present case and are distinguishable. 61. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff heavily relied on the decision in Chee Pok Choy & Ors v Scotch Leasing Sdn. Bhd. (supra). However, the factual disparities between Chee Pok Choy and the current case are significant, and the reasons cited by the Court of Appeal for not applying the doctrine of res judicata in that instance are not applicable here. In this case, the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Federal Court were fully competent and adequately informed S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 about the circumstances between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, with no concealment of material facts. 62. As mentioned earlier, the Plaintiff’s action plainly falls under the purview of res judicata, both in its narrow and broad interpretation, as determined in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v. Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd. (supra) and Lin Wen-Chih & Anor v Pacific Forest Industries Sdn. Bhd. & Anor (supra). 63. Hence, for the abovementioned reasons, I find the Plaintiff’s action is obviously unsustainable and an abuse of the process of the court. Thus, it ought to be struck out. Therefore, I granted the Defendants’ application in enclosure 9 to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim, with costs awarded to the Defendants in the amount of RM6000. Dated: 21 December 2023 -sgd- JAMHIRAH ALI JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam (NCVC 1) To the parties’ solicitors: For the Plaintiff : Dheenish a/l Thevandran (Messrs. S.Ravichandaran & Anuar) For the Defendants : Andrew Chiew Ean Vooi & Wong Han Wey (Messrs. Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill) S/N sgrjBIEtyEKxfryvIA8niQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24NCvC-544-03/2022

PEMOHON WAN ZAKIAH BINTI WAN KASSIM PENCELAH SUPREME CONCEPT SDN BHD

Consequential to the striking out of Enc 19, the High Court Order dated 11.3.2023 stands valid and binding. As for the Appellant’s main application, premised on the Appellant and/or her counsel absence at the hearing despite reminders to be present, and the conduct of the matter where affidavits and submissions were filed late in defiant of this Court’s directions, this Court struck out the Appellant’s main application. Costs of RM3,000 was awarded to the Respondent.

21/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=54a4fcb1-ec4c-441f-b884-36bbb293a91d&Inline=true

21/12/2023 09:53:03 WA-24NCvC-544-03/2022 Kand. 44 S/N sfykVEzsH0S4hDa7spOpHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sfykVEzsH0S4hDa7spOpHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sfykVEzsH0S4hDa7spOpHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sfykVEzsH0S4hDa7spOpHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sfykVEzsH0S4hDa7spOpHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sfykVEzsH0S4hDa7spOpHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—24NCvC—5dl—03/2022 Kand. 44 21/12,2122: D9:S3'D3 IN me man COURT In MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL rERRItoRv. MALAVSIA CIVIL APPEAL NO: wA.24ucvc-544-as/2022 m aErwEEN WAN ZAKIAN amn WAN KASSIM (muc No: zunzmz-sass) APPELLANT SUPREME coucsn sou sun (Company Nu: 564604-M/ZDGIMGZSOIAG] . . RESPONDENT anouuns JUDGMENT [1 1 The AupeHan|, as years 0! age filed an appeax agamsl um: Conn’: dedsncn on 5.1 x 2023 m slnxa ou| herappllcahon to set Esme nms courrs ordev on 20.7 2023 [Enc 19;. Thu cm: al this case are not corwoluled (hough u may gwe man Impression a| fi:s| blush The ms nmmer, us mfllvalod with suspn ans M fraud, Vorgery and unlawful acts The chronulngy \5 as lallnws sm srykvasHns4nD:7sp9pHG mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! . 932022 me Appeflanl area an exvpane appncamon «Bax swgm a com arder for the following, amcngsl o1heIs' 1 the undwldad quzrler share 5! me land GM167D Lot No 2355 Muklm aam Sungm mu Daerah Kuala Lumpur Vwlayah Parsekuluan undur Snadnun H; Mund Nor be amgnaa in Iran Awdlanl. 2 mm unnamed quanar sham cl Ihs same land undur Maimunah H; Mum! Nur be assumed to me Aunellann. 3. The Regusvar al the Land Office effect this‘ wllh a munonal or endorsement in [he one 01‘ [he land T. 11.3 2922 Tue mg» om mma an om.r.n terms at ma ‘ Aopellanrsax-pansapplicllxon j 1 . no 2022 The man court Order was 11 3 022 wt: sealsd [2] man nrangsiy, One year later an 20 1 2023, (he Appelllntfilod in a Notice of msconunuanae This was tamer pewhar grven max in om: was granted in me Aapeaanrs lavour the year before Thus were no records 2 m srykvawnslhn-7ip0vHG «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! :2! any achvlly unm lfvue mm|hs law On 25 4.2023, Ihe Respondenffiled us aaplucanan to udervena and se| aside me High com Order dated 11.3 2022. 59 an n 5 2023, ms Cowl wrecked the parues (0 Vile mew respecnve amdavns and sunmssmns am :.an2u.7.2n23 fnrme hearing or me Respandenrs aopucauon m mlervene am se( awe me mgn Cuurl om: da|ed 11 3 2022. Dlrocflans In he Appenanrs counsel wan to ma rm alfidavn m mp\y by 25 5 m2: [3] A! m. hearing an 20 7 2023. me Appelanfs counsel was nut pmsnrfl The Anon am‘: amdawx m reply was filed on a 7.2472: Much was 43 days out or Mme There wii nu zpphcmlan lo! loive lo admrl her Van amaavin m usury It showed mu she had Irzvalled aH ma way «om her address m Nor Se1ar Kadah m affimu me amam m randy an we Kuaha Lumpur High cam an 25 a 2023 um. Ihe wnsmeraflon onne amaavn and suarmssmns on behalf of me Respondenla W5 Cnurl allowed me Respundml to miervens am set asme me mgr. own Order da|sd 11.: 2022 ms Court names (0 hear me Appellanfs appllcatvon and dxrecled Fm me Respanasm |o me as amaavu m reply In ms Appellant’: applncalion by 3 52023. me Anpsilanl had unnl 17 5,2023 to me her amdavnl to respond‘ :1 any me case management of me case was was on me even dale Ihough nu pames were present in com most probably due |c Ihe lellawlng eouraa 01 events as helm [A] On 21 7 2D23ma Appallanullad Em;1B- heravnhcalmnla sans-as Xhvs caurrs order on 2072023 and mac n be re-heard M em casa mznagemanc of Em 1: on 15.3.2723. me Aapeflanl vacnwou dvucllons (mm mm: Oourl |o me Mr submusmnx by 15 92023 am any rIp\y by ; am sVykVasHns4hD-7sWaHG “Nana san-1 nmhnrwm a. U... a my a. nflmnlflly am. flnuamnl VI mum v-max 1310 202: The neanng nor the Appeuanrs Em: 19 was fixad lav 9112023. [51 Each |u me Appeflanls mam apannmmn, nu parry ennenm me menhon on 17 s 2023 when VI was caned up were ma cum On 21 a 2023 when me mallar was cause up again. me Anpanann-s counsel was run! meter“ and the Servo! Assnslanl Reguslrlr give new duacuons wnaruhy me Respondenl wus na ma as Imdavnt In new no me Aupellanls mam auanncannm by 25.5 202: Tha AppeHam was no reply ne ma Rupondenl‘s affidzwl by A 9.202: All Iubmlsinnns were no be mad am exchanged by 29 9 2023 Aluumenlx ov me Awellanrs mam npplucallon were fixed M1810 mu. [6] On 15 no 2023 ms Appenann-s counsel aanmea he was not madylo proceed and man Em: 19 had yen no as disvnsed 01 The com iflowed an adpummem no 941.2023 where nnnn manavs (EN: 19 and En: n (ma Appauanrs mam appllcanlonn wile sen rm hearing, me dale olwmch ms aneauy for Enc 19. The Court lunher omered «or me Appellant |c be present as me Responaenn had queued me veracity am aulhennclly mi me aflidavnl she had ammwd. ms Conn concurred, as in was mdaad ralher suspncious mac me Appellant whom her mmaen nepeuneany suhmnllaa wax enemy and nmweu cauld have nravenea all ma way an nae Kuala Lumpur Hugh Ooun lo ammn my afiidav Funnnamnane, me Rarspandanl informed «me Cowl man :1: a miner apphcannon aetm enonrnev n-nngrn coun, Messrs, Shaharuddnn. Sum Sunder A Parnnm omcnalry daclarud man may were me Appellanls nawyens and men me Appannanre connnnaen on record here was non aulhunlad |a reprasam Mr sm srykvawnsmu-7sp0aHG “Nana Snr1I\nmhnrwHH>e met! a my n... anmnauly mm. flnuamnl VI mum wan The Anuenanrs counsel nmsuea he had the amnomy, Thus, «ms com insmmea me Appeuam |u be presem persanally an ma heanng dale 01 9.11.2023 In ename (he vamamn nllads Yhe Appeuanrs munaax was arse reminded Io amend me same [71 Drama unravulled on n n 2023 when amn-ea moalcrucnal, Ims lune me second time. the Appellanls oounsni am no! allsnd «na heanng He ma wnl a laltar an In allnmoon 01 s 11 2023 mm (he Appellant was unweH and bad—bo1md after Mr dvtcharga «nun ma hasmm mron dlys anon Counsel nu ma Raspnndem showed racards Ihn| slalod me Anneuanvs counsel was nnl sanchonad by me ADDGIIIHK in avvear (or and reyresenl her The Respondent had made (ms known on me Anpellanl wds us counsel‘: Vallerdahed 13 9 2023 lo the Aweuanrs ocunse\ rrns Conn had Vocked mtu ma reams of ma Cnmrmssuoner oi Cams a| |he Kuala Lumpur Hrgh Court and mna mm ma Appellant had no! amnnaa any amdavlx on 25 6.2023 [5] AI «ms swage, mm an Ihe dlsorepancwes more this oaun and me cnnducl by me Appellam and/av har counsel that maca(ed dnswuarssl m me pumnn or Enc :9, INS Court was ov me ccnsmeued mew Ihal En: I9 ought (0 be struck ou| cosxs or Rmanou was awarded na me Respondent [91 Cansequarmal to the sinking mu :2! Ena 19. um Hugh Court order daled 11 3 2023 stands valid and bmdmu. As for me fiapfillinfs mlln app:-canon, premixed on ma AppeHan( and/av her counsal aasanu at me neanng assume remmoers m be present, and cm cnndlm mne matter a am s?ykVasHns4hD-7sp0aHG «ma a.nn lunhnrwm a. U... a my a. annnn-y mum: flnuamnl VI aruma v-max where affidavws and suhmissmns were men Vale m aenam of ms cams avecliuns. mis Cnurl slruck om me Apnsilanrs mam zppllcahon Costs 0! RMBDOU was awavded In me Respandeul. DATED 17 DECEMBER 2023 vsvwfl“ R02 MAWAR Rozauu PESURUHJAYA KEHAKVMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGW MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For me Appe//am: Kmnm Amlal Man T/n The Chamber olAnuav Far Ins Responds»! Ra!-yen N cnanavan together mm I/rmmu Laksmy a/p Maharv T/n Nakem mam 3. Assoaara: m srykvasHns4M::7sp0pHG «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

AA-B52NCvC-13-03/2019

PLAINTIF SJS LOGISTICS (M) SDN. BHD DEFENDAN MAYANG BAYUMAS SDN. BHD

Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah untuk jumlah baki terhutang sebanyak RM482,000.00 oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif berdasarkan suatu ‘Perjanjian’ bertarikh 5/11/2015 untuk pembelian pukal tujuh belas unit (17) kenderaan terpakai yang terdiri daripada lapan (8) unit Scania dan sembilan (9) unit Volvo Prime Movers. Pihak Defendan pula telah memfailkan tuntutan balas terhadap pihak Plaintif bagi kos pembaikan lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers sebanyak RM490,011.04 dan/atau alternatifnya RM410,811.04 atas kerugian-kerugian tersebut. Mahkamah telah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif untuk wang sebanyak RM79,200/- sahaja manakala tuntutan balas pihak Defendan terhadap pihak Plaintif ditolak. Tindakan Plaintif jelas menunjukkan bahawa mereka telah setuju dengan permintaan Defendan dan terdapat ‘variation’ di dalam Perjanjian diantara kedua-dua pihak. Tuntutan balas pihak Defendan - Mahkamah berpendapat pihak Defendan gagal membukitkan gantirugi yang dituntut , tuntutan balas adalah suatu pemikiran semula (‘afterthought’) dan syarat jualan ialah ‘as is where is basis’.

21/12/2023

Puan Priscilla Hemamalini a/p Nadarajan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bedacbc3-8c90-4641-a5fd-225690000279&Inline=true

Page 1 of 14 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI IPOH DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. AA-B52NCvC-13-03/2019 ANTARA SJS LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 873827-P) ...… PLAINTIF DAN MAYANG BAYUMAS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 700973-M) ..… DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah untuk jumlah baki terhutang sebanyak RM482,000.00 oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif berdasarkan suatu ‘Perjanjian’ bertarikh 5/11/2015 (Ekshibit P5) untuk pembelian pukal tujuh belas unit (17) kenderaan terpakai yang terdiri daripada lapan (8) unit Scania dan sembilan (9) unit Volvo Prime Movers. [2] Pihak Defendan pula telah memfailkan tuntutan balas terhadap pihak Plaintif bagi kos pembaikan lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers sebanyak RM490,011.04 dan/atau alternatifnya RM410,811.04 atas kerugian-kerugian tersebut. 21/12/2023 15:21:58 AA-B52NCvC-13-03/2019 Kand. 104 S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 14 [3] Kes telah dibicarakan oleh Hakim Tn Harith Sham dengan keterangan SP1, SP2, SD1 dan SD2. Setelah saya diarahkan untuk sambung bicara kes ini, saya telah selesai mendengar keterangan SD2 dan seterusnya keterangan SD3. Pada akhir perbicaraan kes, Mahkamah telah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif untuk wang sebanyak RM79,200/- sahaja manakala tuntutan balas pihak Defendan terhadap pihak Plaintif ditolak. [4] Pihak Plaintif dan pihak Defendan tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan Mahkamah dan kini merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi. Pihak Plaintif telah memfailkan notis rayuan bagi tuntutan dua(2) unit Volvo Prime Movers bernombor pendaftaran AHS 7662 dan AHT 3886 yang tidak dibenarkan. Pihak Defendan pula memfailkan notis rayuan bagi keputusan Mahkamah yang tidak membenarkan tuntutan balas mereka. Kes Plaintif [5] Butir-butir tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah seperti berikut: i) Lapan (8) unit Scania terpakai Harga seunit RM52,000/- x 8 = RM 420,000.00 ii) Sembilan (9) unit Volvo Prime Movers Harga seunit RM190,000/- x 9 = RM1,710,000.00 RM2,130,000.00 Tambah GST 6% RM 127,000.00 =============== RM2,257,800.00 S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 14 KURANGAN: Bayaran yang telah dibuat RM1,744,000.00 RM 513,800.00 Diskaun RM 30,000.00 GST 6% utk diskaun (RM30,000) RM 1,800.00 ============= BAKI JUMLAH RM 482,000.00 Semua kenderaan telah diambil kecuali dua (2) unit Volvo Prime Movers yang mempunyai nombor pendaftaran AHS 7662 dan AHT 3886. Secara kebiasaan, menurut permintaan Defendan, dua buah kenderaan tersebut telah dihantar ke Workshop Volvo Ipoh untuk kutipan Defendan. Milikan dan tanggungjawap dipindahkan kepada Defendan dari tarikh penghataran. Plaintif telah menghantar notis tuntutan bertarikh 22/6/2017 kepada pihak Defendan dan kini menuntut baki bayaran berjumlah RM482,000/- Kes Defendan [6] Pada atau kira-kira pada 05/11/2015, Plaintif hanya membawa lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers bersama-sama dokumen pendaftararannya untuk tujuan pemeriksaan. [7] Adalah menjadi persetujuan kedua-dua pihak bahawa ianya merupakan satu syarat bahawa Defendan diberikan hak untuk memeriksa lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers tersebut berserta dokumen- dokumen pendaftarannya sepertimana yang ditawarkan oleh pihak Plaintif. S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 14 Selepas memeriksa kenderaan-kenderaan tersebut, Defendan telah bersetuju untuk membeli kenderaan-kenderaan tersebut. [8] Seterusnya, Plaintif telah menawarkan dua (2) unit Volvo Prime Movers, iaitu kenderaan No. AHT3886 dan AHS7662 (“2 unit Volvo tambahan”) kepada Defendan dan sekali lagi Defendan telah memaklumkan bahawa iainya satu syarat untuk dua (2) unit Volvo tambahan tersebut diperiksa oleh agen-agen Defendan sebelum Defendan bersetuju untuk menerima tawaran dan/atau membeli 2 unit Volvo tambahan tersebut. [9] Defendan telah mendapati bahawa: 8 unit Scania dan 7 unit Volvo (ataupun sebahagian daripadanya) (a) Tidak dalam keadaan-keadaan memuaskan; (b) Tidak “roadworthy”; ataupun (c) Tidak sesuai untuk digunakan sebagai lori pengangkutan dan/atau tidak sesuai untuk digunakan di jalanraya. 2 unit Volvo tambahan (AHS7662 dan AHT3886) pula berada dalam kualiti yang tidak memuaskan dan/atau tidak sesuai untuk tujuan dan/atau tidak boleh dipercayai. S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 14 [10] Adalah menjadi penegasan Defendan bahawa ia adalah yang tersirat dalam istilah jualan itu bahawa: (a) kenderaan-kenderaan yang dipersetujui tersebut mestilah dalam keadaan yang memuaskan; (b) kenderaan-kenderaan yang dipersetujui tersebut sepatutnya sesuai untuk tujuan itu di mana ianya adalah digunakan oleh Defendan untuk perniagaan pengangkutan lori. [11] Oleh kerana Defendan telah mengalami kerugian untuk membaiki kenderaan-kenderaan yang dipersetujui tersebut dan atas itu, telah menuntut balas sejumlah RM490,011.04 dan/atau alternatifnya RM410,811.04 atas kerugian-kerugian tersebut. Keputusan Mahkamah [12] Pihak Plaintif menyatakan bahawa ‘Quotation’ bertarikh 5/11/2015 (Ekshibit P5) merupakan Perjanjian diantara kedua-dua pihak dimana pihak Defendan telah bersetuju untuk membeli lapan (8) unit Scania dan sembilan (9) unit Volvo Prime Movers. Pihak Defendan pula menyatakan tiada Perjanjian Pembelian seperti di atas. Sebelum ‘Quotation’ tersebut diisukan oleh pihak Plaintif, terdapat satu surat daripada Volvo Malaysia kepada Defendan bertarikh 20/10/2015 (Ekshibit P1) bagi anggaran harga berdasarkan nilai pasaran bagi Volvo Prime Mover yang ditandatangani oleh SP1 yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “With reference to the above, please note that the estimated market value for above said units are at RM260,000.00 to RM270,000.00 per unit. S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 14 The price range given is based on estimation which SUBJECTED TO THE ROADWORTHY for the said prime mover. In additional, all above said units are 100% truck maintenance carried out by Volvo Malaysia workshop.” Pihak Defendan menyatakan bahawa mereka bersetuju dengan harga pembelian yang ditawarkan oleh pihak Plaintif bagi kesemua lapan (8) unit Scania dan sembilan (9) unit Volvo atas jaminan kondisi kenderaan-kenderaan tersebut yang mana adalah ‘As is where is basis’ yang juga merujuk kepada kondisinya adalah ‘Roadwothy’ yang dibaca dan dirujuk bersama surat dari Volvo bertarikh 20.10.2015 tersebut. Mahkamah mendapati walaupun pihak Defendan mendakwa bahawa ‘Quotation’ tersebut bukan suatu Perjanjian Pembelian, namum mereka telah membayar pihak Plaintif berdasarkan penyata-penyata akaun yang telah dikeluarkan berpandukan ‘Quotation’ tersebut. Pihak Defendan telah bergantung (‘rely’) keatas penyata-penyata akaun yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak Plaintif untuk membuat bayaran. Pihak Defendan juga bergantung kepada penyata akaun pihak Plaintif untuk menyatakan bahawa pihak Plaintif telah menolak harga bagi dua (2) unit Volvo tambahan apabila merujuk kepada baki yang perlu dibayar seperti penyata akaun Plaintif bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Ekshibit P15B) yang disertakan bersama emel pihak Plaintif bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Ekshibit P15A). S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 14 Penyata-penyata akaun yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak Plaintif adalah berdasarkan ‘Quotation’ bertarikh 5/11/2015. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa ‘Quotation’ tersebut adalah Perjanjian diantara kedua-dua pihak bagi pembelian lapan (8) unit Scania dan sembilan (9) unit Volvo Prime Movers. [13] Pihak Defendan menyatakan bahawa wujud syarat untuk agen Defendan memeriksa dokumen-dokumen pendaftaran bagi dua (2) unit Volvo tambahan sebelum bersetuju membeli. Mahkamah merujuk kepada Perjanjian bertarikh 5/11/2015. Tiada apa-apa di dalam Perjanjian tersebut yang menyokong allegasi pihak Defendan. Selain daripada itu, tiada apa-apa dokumen atau keterangan lain bagi menyokong allegasi pihak Defendan mengenai isu ini. [14] Menurut pihak Defendan, mereka telah memaklumkan kepada pihak Plaintif bahawa mereka tidak ingin membeli dua (2) unit Volvo tambahan (AHS7662 dan AHT3886) secara lisan sebelum tarikh 20/7/2016 dan melalui emel bertarikh 20/7/2016 dan 17/4/2017. Ketika SP2 diperiksa balas, beliau telah setuju bahawa pihak Defendan teah membuat penolakkan bagi dua (2) unit Vovo tambahan secara lisan. S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 14 Mahkamah merujuk kepada emel yang telah dihantar oleh SD3 pada 20/7/2016 kepada seorang yang bernama Kelly di Syarikat Plaintif (Ekshibit P9). Emel daripada pihak Defendan menyatakan “Dear Kelly, Please deduct 2 units of Volvo from the 9 units agreed. The balance should be RM102,000.00 only”. Selepas itu, pihak Plaintif melalui pekerjanya dan /atau agennya bernama Kelly, telah menghantar emel bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Ekshibit P15A) dengan Penyata akaun bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Ekshibit P15B) kepada pihak Defendan. Di dalam Penyata akaun tersebut, pihak Plaintif menuntut baki bayaran untuk lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers sahaja tanpa menambahkan dan memasukkan dua (2) unit Volvo tambahan tersebut. Walaubagaimanapun, pihak Plaintif menyatakan bahawa mereka tidak setuju dengan permintaan pihak Defendan. Pihak Plaintif menyatakan bahawa berlaku kesilapan oleh kerani bernama Kelly apabila pihak Plaintif menghantar emel bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Ekshibit P15A) dengan Penyata akaun bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Ekshibit P15B) kepada pihak Defendan. Selepas itu Kelly telah menghantar emel bertarikh 14/3/2017 (Ekshibit P16A) kepada pihak Defendan dengan suatu Penyata akaun yang baru bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Ekshibit P16B). Kandungan emel tersebut adalah seperti berikut: “Kindly ignore the earlier statement in our email dated 19/01/2017, enclosed herewith is the correct statement as at to date.” Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak Plaintif tidak memanggil Kelly dan/atau pihak yang menjaga akaun Syarikat untuk memberi keterangan mengenai kesilapan yang telah berlaku. Mahkamah membuat inferens dibawah seksyen S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 14 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 bahawa jika keterangan Kelly dikemukakan, ia akan menjejaskan kes Plaintif. Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 menyatakan: (g) bahawa keterangan yang boleh dikemukakan tetapi tidak dikemukakan, jika dikemukakan, tidak akan memberi faedah kepada orang yang enggan mengemukakannya. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa emel bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Ekshibit P15A) dengan Penyata akaun bertarikh 19/1/2017 (Eksibit P15B) yang telah dihantar kepada pihak Defendan menunjukkan bahawa pihak Plaintif telah bersetuju dengan permintaan Defendan untuk menolak jumlah bagi dua (2) unit Volvo tambahan tesebut. Tindakan Plaintif jelas menunjukkan bahawa mereka telah setuju dengan permintaan Defendan dan terdapat ‘variation’ di dalam Perjanjian diantara kedua-dua pihak. Di dalam kes Foo Tye Electrical Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Sarawak Electricity Supply Corporation [2007] 2 CLJ 354, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan bahawa ‘Terms of contract varied by conduct of parties’. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah tidak membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif bagi dua (2) buah unit unit Volvo Prime Movers tersebut. Oleh kerana jumlah di dalam penyata akaun (Ekshibit P15B) adalah RM111,000.00 dan selepas itu Plaintif telah memberi diskaun sebanyak RM31,000.00 maka jumlah yang perlu dibayar oleh Defendan kepada pihak Plaintif ialah RM111,000.00 tolak RM31,000.00 = RM79,200.00 S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 14 Tuntutan balas pihak Defendan [15] SD1 adalah seorang mekanik dan juga Manager di Yonming Auto. Beliau telah memeriksa dua (2) unit Volvo tambahan dan juga telah melakukan pembaikan keatas kenderaan-kenderaan lain yang telah dihantar oleh pihak Defendan. Daripada keterangan SD1 sendiri, semasa pemeriksaan balas, beliau mengaku bahawa pembaikan yang dilakukan adalah penambahbaikan/‘upgrading’. Ia tidak perlu atau material supaya kenderaan boleh berjalan di atas jalan. [16] SD2 adalah seorang Mekanik dan pemilik dan Pengarah Power Truck Electrical & Air Cond Services. Beliau tidak pasti samada kerosakkan pada kenderaan mungkin timbul akibat cara kegunaan Defendan. SD2 juga mengakui bahawa kebanyakkan penambahbaikkan yang dilakukan olehnya tidak ada kena mengenai dengan Plaintif. Beliau juga setuju bahawa semuanya ‘standard servicing’. [17] SD3 adalah Pengarah Syarikat Defendan. Pada tahap pemeriksaan balas, apabila ditanya oleh peguam Plaintif “I put it to you that there are no such proof that you have paid 400 over thousand for the repair cost” dan SD3 menjawap seperti berikut: SD3 : No, I disagree. Its actually the invoices in Bundle C. Invoices is actually from Power Truck forgot to put in the invoices from Yonming Auto Part.” S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 14 SD3 juga setuju bahawa beliau tidak mempunyai bukti bahawa kenderaan- kenderaan tidak boleh dipakai dan beliau telah mengalami kehilangan pendapatan. SD3 juga mengakui bahawa beliau mempunyai 16 tahun pengalaman dalam industri tersebut dan telah mengakui bahawa beliau telah membuat pemeriksaan keatas lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers. [18] Keterangan SD1 dan SD2 menunjukkan bahawa kenderaan-kenderaan yang dihantar untuk diperbaiki sebenarnya bertujuan untuk ‘upgrading’ dan ‘standard servicing’. [19] Daripada keterangan SD3, adalah jelas bahawa beliau telah melakukan pemeriksaan keatas lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers dan telah berpuashati dengan kenderaan-kenderaan tersebut. Pihak Defendan juga tidak mempertikaikan isu bahawa lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers telah diterima oleh Defendan selepas pemeriksaan dijalankan. Namun pihak Defendan telah menuntut balas terhadap Plaintif bagi lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers ini atas jumlah pembaikan dan penyelenggaraan yang dibuat atas kerosakan-kerosakan yang terakru selepas pihak Defendan bersetuju untuk membelinya. Mahkamah berpendapat pihak Defendan gagal membukitkan gantirugi yang dituntut. SD3 sendiri mengaku bahawa beliau telah membuat pemeriksaan keatas lapan (8) unit Scania dan tujuh (7) unit Volvo Prime Movers dan beliau S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 14 berpuashati dengan kenderaan-kenderaan tersebut. Adalah jelas bahawa tuntutan balas pihak Defendan adalah suatu pemikiran semula (‘afterthought’). Mahkamah setuju dengan hujah pihak Plaintif dan mendapati bahawa pihak Defendan hanya membangkitkan isu ‘roadworthiness’ selepas tuntutan difailkan oleh pihak Plaintif. Selain daripada itu, kesemua kenderaan telah lulus pemeriksaan Puspakom sebelum pindahmilik dilakukan. Di dalam kes Pembinaan Emaskami Sdn Bhd v. Hakikat Engineering Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 367, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah mendapati bahawa:- “[99]A common denominator for all the above counter claims is that there had not been any formal demand made before the filing of the Defendant’s Counterclaim and neither had there been any reference to any contemporaneous documents evidencing the counter claims. [100]They are all clearly an afterthought put in to, if possible, reduce the Plaintiff’s claim.” Di dalam kes MVA Investments Ltd v. Sri Changgong Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 372, Mahkamah telah mendapati bahawa tuntutan balas merupakan satu fikir kemudian:- “[91]DW1 confirmed that there had never been a letter of demand issued by the defendant. Under cross examination, DW1 said: “Q: Now can you confirm that there was no letter of demand from Sri Changgong to MVA for this amount, purportedly owing. Do you agree? A: Yes.” [92]That being the case, this Court is of the considered view that the counter claim was a recent invention created for the purpose of defending the present suit and accordingly it was an S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 14 afterthought. See Shinning Crest Sdn Bhd (Appointed Receiver and Manager) & Ors v. Malaysia Building Society Bhd [2018] 10 MLJ 491.” Pihak Defendan tidak pernah mengeluarkan Notis Tuntutan terhadap Plaintif berkenaan kualiti kenderaan-kenderaan ataupun tuntut gantirugi sepertimana dalam tuntutan balas sehingga Plaintif menuntut baki hutang yang perlu dibayar. Oleh itu, adalah jelas bahawa tuntutan balas pihak Defendan merupakan satu fikiran kemudian. [20] Syarat jualan atau ‘Selling condition’ yang tertera di dalam Perjanjian bertarikh 5/11/2017 memperuntukkan terma “Selling condition : As is where is basis. Discounted unit price is based on total 17 units” . Di dalam kes Primutiara Development Sdn Bhd v. Trimvilla Sdn Bhd [2023] 1 LNS 1502 , Mahkamah telah memberikan definisi “As is where is basis”: “[31] In Mensa Mercantile (Far East) Pte Ltd v Eikobina (M) Sdn Bhd [1989] 2 MLJ 170 at 175 - 176, the High Court considered the meaning of the phrase ‘as is where is basis’ and said: “The term ‘as is where is’ appearing in a sale transaction is defined in the Encyclopaedia of Practical Usages of Terminology for Business Agreements, at p 40, as being a sale of goods without warranty or guarantee as to quality, character, condition, size, weight or kind.’ In other words, to quote PW1, ‘I take them as I see them’.” Terma perjanjian tersebut jelas menghalang pihak Defendan daripada menuntut apa-apa gantirugi untuk pembaikan terhadap kenderaan-kenderaan S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 14 yang telah dibeli daripada pihak Plaintif. Oleh yang demikian, tuntutan balas pihak Defendan ditolak. Bertarikh pada 21 Disember, 2023 ……………………………...……... ( Priscilla Hemamalini Nadarajan) Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil 2 Ipoh, Perak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peguamcara: Bagi pihak Plaintif : Danielle Andrea Gomes bersama-sama L.A. Gomes dan Cheryl Anne Gomes dari Tetuan The Law Offices of L.A. Gomes, Meor Shaazizi & Associates Bagi pihak Defendan: Tan Chik Wai bersama-sama Nur Amirah bt Noor Azlam dari Tetuan Low & Partners S/N w8vavpCMQUal/SJWkAACeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-12BNCvC-15-05/2021

PERAYU PERMAS JAYA SDN BHD RESPONDEN Goh Hock Lai berniaga sebagai GHL Golf Academy

This was an appeal from the decision of the Sessions Court - TNB (Plaintiff) in the court below, sued the appellant/defendant (owner of the premises) for tampering with the electric meter. The appellant/defendant brought in the respondent as a 3rd party in the suit since he was the tenant of the said premises at the time.-Appeal allowed

21/12/2023

YA Datuk Aslam Bin Zainuddin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6c7f67df-41b0-452d-9d7a-9d43d846b8df&Inline=true

p0401-apcms2112-Permas Jaya SB v Goh Hock Lai Page 1 of 26 MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM CIVIL APPEAL NO. JA-12BNCVC-15-05/2021 BETWEEN PERMAS JAYA SDN BHD (Company No: 14161-T) …APPELLANT AND GOH HOCK LAI (NRIC: 610209-01-5413) BERNIAGA SEBAGAI GHL GOLF ACADEMY (Business No: JM0353639-U) …RESPONDENT (DALAM PERKARA GUAMAN JA-A52NCvC-186-07/2019 MAHKAMAH SESYEN SIVIL, JOHOR BAHRU ANTARA TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 200866-W) …PLAINTIF DAN PERMAS JAYA SDN. BHD. (NO SYARIKAT: 14161-T …DEFENDAN DAN GOH HOCK LAI (NRIC: 610209-01-5413) BERNIAGA SEBAGAI GHL GOLF ACADEMY (Business No: JM0353639-U) …PIHAK KETIGA) 04/01/2024 11:56:48 JA-12BNCvC-15-05/2021 Kand. 18 S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 26 GROUNDS OF DECISION [1] This was an appeal from the decision of the Sessions Court where Tenaga Nasional Bhd who was the plaintiff in the court below, sued the appellant/defendant as the owner of the premises for tampering with the electric meter. The appellant/defendant brought in the respondent as a third party in the suit since he was the tenant of the said premises at the time. The sessions court judge had dismissed Tenaga’s and the appellant’s claim. On appeal to the High Court, I allowed the claim by TNB and the appellant. There were two appeals filed in relation to this matter, the first was by the plaintiff TNB vide case no JA-12BNCvC-16-05/2021 and the second was by the appellant/defendant vide case no JA- 12BNCvC-15-05/2021. Both the appeals were heard together and the claim by TNB and the appellant were allowed with costs of RM 5000.00 and allocatur fees. The respondent now appeals further to the Court of Appeal. As of the date of this judgment, there was no appeal filed in case no JA-12BNCvC-16- 05/2021. [2] The facts of the case as can be gleaned from the submissions of the appellant/defendant is as follows: “A. SALIENT FACTS OF THE CASE i. At all material times, the Defendant is the registered proprietor of the lands bearing the title numbers Geran Mukim 1404 Lot 50727, HS(D) 260265 PTD 147017, Geran Mukim 1405 Lot 50729, HS(D) 260264 PTD 147016, HS(D) 260266 PTD 147018 (later known as HS(D) 530623 PTD 200073, HS(D) S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 26 530624 PTD 200074, and HS(D) 530626 PTD 200076), all of which are within Mukim of Plentong, District of Johor Bahru, State of Johor and bearing the postal address of Golf Course, Jalan Permas Selatan, Bandar Permas Jaya, 81750 Masai, Johor (“the said Premises”). ii. The Defendant owns an electricity supply user account with the number 03450061760501 (“the said Account”) for the said Premises. iii. From 1.7.2009 to 31.3.2016 (“the said Tenancy Period”), the Defendant had rented the said Premises to the Third Party via lease exempt from registration dated 24.8.2009 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party, letter dated 29.6.2011, lease exempt from registration dated 7.9.2012 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party, letter dated 2.5.2013 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party, lease exempt from registration dated 20.7.2014 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party and letter dated 4.6.2015 signed by the Defendant and the Third Party. iv. On 25.2.2016, the Defendant received “Surat Tuntutan Bagi Amaun Kerugian Hasil (Terkurang Caj) Dan Perbelanjaan Akibat Mengganggu / Mengubahpinda / Merosakkan Pepasangan Meter Tenaga Nasional Berhad” dated 24.2016 from the Plaintiff claiming that the Plaintiff had performed an inspection on the meter installation / meter in the said Premises on 14.10.2014 (“the Alleged Inspection”) (which is denied) and discovered elements of interference / alteration / damage on the meter installation / meter and that had caused failure to record the actual output or consumption of electricity by the meter installation / meter (which is denied) (“the Alleged Meter Tampering”) and thereafter claimed from the Defendant as the registered owner of the said Account a total sum of RM126,033.23 being the loss of revenue calculating S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 26 from 1.12.2011 to 14.10.2014 and the rectification costs (which is denied). v. Neither the Defendant nor the Defendant’s representative was notified to be present during the Alleged Inspection (which is denied). vi. After having received Exhibit P3, on 1.3.2016, the Defendant served a reply letter dated 1.3.2016 to the Plaintiff, wherein the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that the said Premises were rented to the Third Party and the Defendant was contacting the Third Party to get an explanation from him in regards to the Plaintiff’s claim. vii. On the same day i.e. 1.3.2016, the Defendant also served a notice of demand dated 1.3.2016 to the Third Party to inform the Third Party about the Plaintiff’s claim and to demand the Third Party to settle the Plaintiff’s claim as the Alleged Meter Tampering (which is denied) occurred during the said Tenancy Period. viii. On 16.3.2016, the Defendant’s security guard, Mr Azeman Bin Abdullah (“SD1”) lodged a police report to deny the Alleged Meter Tampering and stressed that the meter installation / meter was inside the Plaintiff’s meter room and the meter room was locked and the keys were in the Plaintiff’s possession, save for the Plaintiff, no one else was able to access the meter installation / meter. ix. On 17.3.2016, the Defendant served a letter dated 17.3.2016 to the Plaintiff to demand on explanation from the Plaintiff in regards to the location of the meter installation / meter which was said to be tampered with (which is denied), the reasons as to why the Defendant and/or the Defendant’s representative was not informed to be present during the Alleged Inspection (which is denied), evidences on the Alleged Meter Tampering S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 26 (which is denied), and the particulars in regards to the loss of revenue of RM126,033.23 (which is denied). x. On 24.3.2016, the Defendant served a letter of demand dated 24.3.2016 to the Third Party to inform him that the Defendant reserved its rights to hold the Third Party responsible for any and all demand by the Plaintiff in regards to the Alleged Meter Tampering (which is denied). xi. On 7.6.2016, the Plaintiff served a letter dated 7.6.2016 to invite the Defendant to its office at MIT – OSC Johor, Aras 12, Wisma TNB, Jalan Yahya Awal, Johor Bahru on 13.6.2016 at 10.30 am for a discussion on the loss of revenue (which is denied). xii. On 13.6.2016, a discussion was held between the Defendant’s representative namely Cheong Tuck Choy (Samuel) (“SD2”), the Third Party / SPK1, and 2 other Plaintiff’s representatives. On the same day, the Defendant served a letter dated 13.6.2016 to the Plaintiff to offer an explanation and to inform the Plaintiff that: a. the meter installation / meter which was alleged to have been tampered as shown in Exhibit P3 could not be traced by the Defendant’s mechanical and electrical consultant after an inspection had been conducted on the meter installation / meter in the said Premises; b. research was done on the electricity usage record on the said Premises from year 2009 to 2016, which was attached together with Exhibit D29 to show that the fluctuation in electricity consumption for the period concerned. Exhibit D24 showed that the reduction in the electricity consumption was normal; S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 26 c. Exhibit D24 also gave an explanation in regards to the reduction of the electricity consumption in December 2011 was due to the closure of Modjo Café and Bistro (JM0548152-X), a sub-tenant of the Third Party; d. neither the Defendant nor the Third Party was informed the Alleged Meter Tampering (which is denied) after the Alleged Inspection (which is denied) was performed, in order for them to verify it immediately; e. there was no acknowledge receipt of the Alleged Inspection (which is denied) by the Defendant; and f. after the Plaintiff had conducted the Alleged Inspection (which is denied), the electricity consumption rate in the said Premises did not show any drastic change as claimed by the Plaintiff, except for the increase in the tariff for electricity consumption. xiii. Since 13.6.2016, the Defendant did not receive any reply from the Plaintiff.” [3] Let me now examine and discuss some relevant case law on the issue of meter tampering. [4] The first case on point is the case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v JCY HDD Technology Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 1301, where the High Court held: “[31] The fact in issue that must be proven by the Plaintiff is that the meters at the Defendant’s Premises had been tampered with and that the Plaintiff had suffered loss as a result. In the event the Plaintiff fails to prove these facts on a balance of probabilities, its case must necessarily fail.” S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 26 [5] To those who want to read what happened earlier in the above case see Tenaga Nasional Bhd v JCY HDD Technology Sdn Bhd [2012] 3 MLJ 705; [2012] MLJU 217; [2012] 1 LNS 168; [2012] 3 AMR 576; [2013] 7 CLJ 799. [6] The second case is the Federal Court case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Ichi-Ban Plastic (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2018] 3 MLJ 141, [2018] 3 CLJ 557, where the facts were: “The common issues that arose for the court’s adjudication were: (i) whether a consumer must first be convicted for meter- tampering before Tenaga Nasional Bhd (‘TNB’) could recover the loss of revenue under s 38(3) and (4) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (‘the Act’); (ii) the legal effect of the written statement from TNB under s 38(4) of the Act for purposes of recovery of the loss of revenue; (iii) whether an estimation or approximation of the loss of revenue suffered by TNB as a result of a tampered meter at the consumer’s premises is precluded under s 38 claim; (iv) whether the rationale behind s 38 of the Act enabling TNB to recover the unrecorded consumption of electricity by the consumer due to a tampered meter is the unjust benefit enjoyed by the consumer; and (v) whether estoppel arising from delay applies to nullify a s 38 claim.” [7] The Federal Court speaking through Ahmad Maarop CJM, Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin, Azahar Mohamed, Aziah Ali FCJJ held: S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 26 “[33] Now, we revert to the two questions of law posed to us. Both questions relate to the construction of s 38(3) and (4) of the Act. The first question itself is flawed. It refers to a wrong provision. TNB’s right to claim its loss of revenue is under s 38(3) and not s 38(4) of the Act as stated in the question. A wrong question does not require any answer. The second question concerns s 38(3) and 38(4) of the Act. Section 38(4) is a provision relating to the mode of proof where TNB makes a claim for loss of revenue under s 38(3) of the Act. A written statement by an employee duly certified by TNB or by person authorised by TNB stating: (a) the amount of loss of revenue or the expenses incurred by TNB; and (b) the person liable for the payment thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of the payment that has to be made by the consumer under s 38(3) of the Act. For reasons as stated earlier in this judgment a criminal conviction of an offence under s 37(1), (3) or (14) of the Act is not a precondition for TNB to pursue its claims for loss of revenue under s 38(3) of the Act. This right is a separate right independent of its right to disconnect the supply of electricity under s 38(1) of the Act. The answer to the second question must be in the negative. ……… [62] For a written statement to have the effect of a prima facie evidence it must be issued in compliance with the requirement of s 38(4) of the Act. In Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn Bhd the Court of Appeal at p 757, held that for S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 26 TNB to rely on a written statement, the following must have taken place: (i) the appellant must have calculated the loss of revenue and reduce it into a document and written statement; (ii) an employee and/or duly authorised person of the appellant must have perused the document as well as the written statement to certify the written statement; (iii) the certified written statement must contain the particulars stated in s 38(4) of the ESA 1990; (iv) for a valid certificate, the name of the employee or authorised person of the appellant must appear in the statement and duly signed; (v) if a proper certified statement is issued, it needs to be served on the customer and if the customer does not pay, then civil action can be taken. Thus, it is a condition precedent for initiation of civil action in reliance of s 38 for Tenaga to issue a certified written statement according to law, before civil action can be commenced; ……….. [65] In addition, we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn Bhd that the written statement issued pursuant to s 38(4) of the Act by TNB must satisfy the first five conditions mentioned in that case (which are reproduced in para 62 of this judgment) in order for it to be accepted as a prima facie evidence of the payment that has to be made by the consumer. [66] In cases where the written statement was not issued in compliance with s 38(4) of the Act, TNB loses the advantage of the presumption of a prima facie evidence but it does not S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 26 lose the right of recovery given statutorily under s 38(3) of the Act. TNB however, has to prove its claim based on the civil burden and the standard of proof of balance of probabilities. ……… [86] Reverting to the issues raised relating to the calculation point, due to the nature of the claim, we appreciate that there may be difficulty in obtaining the evidence for the claim under s 38 of the Act. Nevertheless, in our view, it would be unwise for us to use this occasion to say anything which might be taken as specifying or limiting the nature and extent of the evidence necessary to establish a claim for loss of revenue under s 38 of the Act. Where precise evidence is available, as for example if there is a special device to measure the loss of revenue due to the tampering of electricity supply, naturally the court expects to have it, but where it is not the court must do the best it can. In other words, there could be other evidence in lieu of precise evidence. For example, approximation or estimation may be used provided it is reasonable and fair. This would depend on the quality of the evidence adduced in court to support that approximation or estimation. In light of what we have said thus far, we find it unnecessary to answer the two questions posed. ……….. [96] Coming back to the present appeals, as an alternative or in addition to the statutory cause of action under s 38(3) of the Act for recovery for loss of revenue, TNB is similarly entitled to legally pursue the claim based on a cause of action in unjust enrichment. If TNB elects to pursue relief for unjust enrichment then, as is a matter of settled law, there must be a proper and specific plea in the statement of claim that its cause of action is so founded. Further, material particulars that give rise to S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 26 unjust enrichment must be provided in the pleadings. In this regard, it is a well-settled legal principle that the court should not decide on an issue that was not pleaded by the parties. Parties are required to set out the factual bases of their respective cases in the pleadings. The most important purpose of pleadings is to plead reasonable cause of action, define the issues of fact and questions of law to be determined by the court (see Saiman bin Umar v Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang and another appeal [2015] 6 MLJ 492). Pleadings enable both parties to know in advance the averments being made against them so that they will not be taken by surprise during the trial. Tellingly, in the present appeals TNB did not plead that its cause of action was founded on the law of unjust enrichment. Unjust benefit was not a pleaded issue. With respect, the submission on the benefit/unjust enrichment question by learned counsel for TNB is, therefore, misconceived.” Whether there was meter tampering [8] The sessions court judge in her grounds, which can be found in enclosure 12 supplementary record of appeal (4) at page 529 said: “Mahkamah dapati wujud pemeriksaan yang telah dijalankan oleh Plaintif melalui keterangan-keterangan SP1, SP4 dan SP5 di premis Defendan dan berlaku kejanggalan pada meter menyebabkan wujud usikan pada P2, panel CT iaitu pendawaian S1 bagi fasa biru di dalam terminal CT walaupun arus sebenar bagi fasa biru adalah 5.8 Amp tetapi meter merekodkan 0 Amp. Memandangkan wujud usikan maka sewajarnyalah Plaintif berhak menuntut kerugian ke atas usikan berdasarkan pernyataan bertulis pekerja Plaintif menurut syarat-syarat s.38(4) yang diterjemahkan di S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 26 dalam kes Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. [2015] 4 MLRA 645.” [9] Therefore the principles culled from the case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Ichi-Ban Plastic (M) Sdn Bhd above applies in the case before me. [10] In Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Asia Knight Bhd (previously known as Pahanco Corp Bhd) [2017] 5 MLJ 681, the Court of Appeal speaking through Vernon Ong JCA (as he then was) said: “[11]…In this connection, we have perused the learned judge’s written judgment and note that the learned judge did not make any finding that there was no tampering of the meter. Instead, the learned judge took the position that there was no evidence to prove that the defendant had access to the meter installation or had tampered with the meter. In other words, there was a non-finding on the question of whether the meter was tampered, which in our considered view is a serious misdirection on the facts and on the law. We also find support for our view in the Federal Court decision which held that only a subjective finding of the plaintiff’s employee is required to prove tampering WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd. On the totality of the evidence we are of the view that on a balance of probabilities the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the meter was tampered.” [11] In Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2021] 9 CLJ 179, the Federal Court speaking via Azahar Mohamed CJM (as he then was) opined: S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 26 “[60] In our view, the resolution of the question turns on the interpretation of sub-ss. 38(1) and (3) of the ESA 1990. If regard had to be given to the phrase "where any person employed by a licensee finds upon any premises evidence which gives reasonable grounds for him to believe that an offence has been committed under sub-s. 37(1), (3) or (14) " appearing in sub-s. 38(1) of the ESA 1990, it is clear that whether an offence has been committed under these subsections is based on TNB's employee "subjective finding". "Grounds to believe" is a common feature in criminal and civil statutes. It is made of two words "grounds" and "to believe". The word "grounds" means to accept as true or to have faith in it. Before TNB's employee has faith or accepts a fact to exist there must be a justification for it. The belief may not be open to scrutiny as it is final conclusion arrived at by TNB's employee concerned as result of mental exercise made by him or her as the result of an inspection carried out at the consumer's premises. [61] However, we take the stand that the reason due to which the conclusion and/or decision is reached can always be examined. When we said that the "grounds to believe" is not open to scrutiny by the court what we meant is that the finding and/or satisfaction arrived at by the employee concerned is immune from challenge but where the finding and/or conclusion is not based on any material or it cannot withstand the test of reason, which is an integral part of it, then it falls through and the court is empowered to reject such finding and/or satisfaction. Belief may be subjective but grounds are objective (see: Ganga Prasad Maheshwari v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 1043; [1981] 21 CTR 83 (AID)). In other words, the "grounds to believe" must be good in faith and must have a S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 26 rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief. Belief must not be based on suspicions, speculation, surmise, conjecture, supposition or guesswork. Therefore, the existence of evidence is necessary. [62] As we have stated earlier, we are fully in agreement and endorse the decision in Ichi-Ban (supra) where this court held that the person who decides whether an offence has been committed under sub-ss. 38(1) and (3) of the ESA 1990 is the person "employed by a licensee (TNB)". And the finding whether an offence has been committed is based on the "subjective finding" of the TNB's employee (see: para [27] of the judgment).” Whether the Energy Commission’s Guidelines are binding [12] In Thong Foo Ching & Ors v Shigenori Ono [1998] 4 MLJ 585, the Court of Appeal via Siti Norma Yaakob JCA (as she then was) held: “A reading of the guidelines shows that there is no penalty imposed for non-compliance of any of their provisions. From the very nature of the document itself and its purpose to eradicate poverty by restructuring the Malaysian society so as to correct any racial economic imbalance, at most I would say the guidelines impose a moral obligation only on those affected to comply with their provisions. In this respect, I agree with Mr Wong that non-compliance or avoidance of the guidelines cannot render any agreement to be invalid or unenforceable. At most, non-compliance can be used as a means of refusing to exercise a discretion, a purely administrative act, as was done by the directors in David Hey's case. On the facts of the appeal before us, I consider that the learned trial judge was correct when she held that avoidance of the guidelines in the manner that S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 15 of 26 was done in this case cannot be held against the respondent as to render the two agreements invalid.” [13] In the case of Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Yu Woon Gin & Anor [2016] MLJU 1019, the High Court decided as below: “[9] I am in agreement with the submission of Miss Prithi that it is patently clear from paragraph 4 of the grounds of judgment that the claim was dismissed on account of TNB’s omission to comply with para 5.2.2 of Guideline. The Sessions Judge was wrong in doing so as the Guideline is purely an administrative guideline and not legally binding on TNB. Section 38 of the ESA permits TNB to rely on the findings of a person employed by it prove meter tampering. The evidence of SP1 and SP2 was sufficient to prove there was meter tampering.” [14] In the case of Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Lension (M) Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 42, it was stated: “[18] There was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was bound to follow the guidelines set by Energy Commission. The plaintiff could have elected to claim back-billing of more than five years. However, the plaintiff took heed of the advice found in the Energy Commission's guidelines to claim the maximum back-billing for five years. [19] Following the advice in the guidelines set by a regulatory body is different from saying the guidelines are binding. In this instant case, the plaintiff followed the guidelines with good faith and accepted it as good practice in exercising its right to formulate the back-billing claims. The plaintiff followed the S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 16 of 26 guidelines not because they were binding on the plaintiff or because they have force of law, but merely as good practice.” Calculation of Losses by Tenaga Nasional [15] In the next case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Bright Rims Manufacturing Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 CLJ 521, it was held as follows: “[14] An objective appreciation of the amount claimed based upon an estimate necessarily requires consideration from the correct perspective. That parliament provided by legislation for claims arising from tampered meters means that parliament reflects the public concern that the selfish acts of those who tamper with the meters inevitably makes the cost of electricity supply more expensive to the public. It is also obvious where a meter is tampered with, there is left no accurate metering of the electricity consumed. To require of the estimate to prove the amount claimed upon a balance of probabilities defeats the acceptance that it may be proved by an estimate. Herein lies the sting: to require too high a standard of proof defeats the estimate and rewards the consumer who tampered with the meter. The wisdom of doing so is so questionable that justice cannot possibly require such a standard. The inequity is equally obvious, for such consumer comes not with clean hands. Justice must necessarily hold that in the balance of justice, it must be the consumer who tampered with the meter who must bear the risk of having to pay more rather than the licensee to take a loss not because it was unable to prove the tampering but because it could not meet the high standard required from the estimate. [15] The reasoning that the respondent had proved a manifest error upon a balance of probabilities is equally flawed. It is the S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 17 of 26 amount claimed that has to be proved upon a balance of probabilities. A claim for backbilled sums due to meter tampering is necessarily based upon an estimate. That estimate is accepted unless it is demonstrated that there is manifest error. It is a question of whether there is or there is not a manifest error. That there is upon a balance of probabilities a manifest error is insufficient to elevate conjecture to a demonstration of manifest error.” [16] Referring again to the case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2021] 9 CLJ 179, supra it was decided by Azahar Mohamed CJM (as he then was) that: “[86] The determination of this issue begins with the similar reference to the decision in Ichi-Ban (supra) where it was accepted that loss of revenue due to meter tampering may be difficult to assess due to evidential difficulties, but damages may still be awarded. It was held that in the absence of precise evidence, approximation or estimation may be used to prove the loss, provided that it is reasonable and fair. It was made clear that "The court must determine the damages as best as it could" and that evidential difficulties in the assessment of damages is not a bar to the court awarding damages.” [17] Finally in Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2015] 6 CLJ 751, it was held: “[6] However, if Tenaga relies on s. 38, they need not prove that the customer tampered with the meter. It is sufficient if they can show that the meter has been tampered. In terms of quantum S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 18 of 26 they can rely on certified written statement to establish their case. That does not mean the respondent cannot challenge the quantum. For the appellant to rely on a written statement, the following must have taken place: (i) the appellant must have calculated the loss of revenue and reduce it into a document and written statement; (ii) an employee and/or duly authorised person of the appellant must have perused the document as well as the written statement to certify the written statement; (iii) the certified written statement must contain the particulars stated in s. 38(4) of ESA 1990; (iv) for a valid certificate, the name of the employee or authorised person of the appellant must appear in the statement and duly signed; (v) if a proper certified statement is issued, it needs to be served on the customer and if the customer does not pay, then civil action can be taken. Thus, it is a condition precedent for initiation of civil action in reliance of s. 38 for Tenaga to issue a certified written statement according to law, before civil action can be commenced;” Appellant/Defendant’s claim against the Respondent/Third Party [18] The appellant submitted that the sessions judge erred in her reasoning to disallow the claim against the respondent third party as follows: “The learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and/or in fact in dismissing the Defendant’s claim against the Third Party with scale cost. S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 19 of 26 i. The Defendant refers to paragraphs 1 to 11, Memorandum of Appeal 15 and submits that the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and/or in fact in dismissing the Defendant’s claim against the Third Party with scale cost. ii. It is submitted that in the grounds of judgment, the learned Sessions Court Judge did not state the reasons of her decision in dismissing the Defendant’s claim against the Third Party with scale cost. iii. In accordance to Exhibits D17, D19 and D21 which was signed by the Defendant and Third Party, the parties had, inter alia, agreed: a. Clause 6.01(i), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.01(i), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.01(i), Exhibit D21. “To obey and comply with and to INDEMNIFY THE OWNER against the breach of all Acts regulations bye- laws rules and requirements of any Governmental or other competent authority relating to the conduct and carrying on of the business of the Club or to any act deed matter or thing done permitted suffered or omitted thereon by the Lessee or by any servant agent or licensee of the Lessee.” b. Clause 6.01(i), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.01(i), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.01(i), Exhibit D21. “To comply with the terms of any Act of Parliament, order, regulation, bye-law, rule, license and registration authorizing or regulating how the Golf Course and Buildings are used.” c. Clause 6.01 (j), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.01(j), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.01(j), Exhibit D21. S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 20 of 26 “Not to conduct the operation of the Club in such a way as to prejudice the goodwill and reputation of the Owner as the registered owner of the Golf Course and Buildings.” d. Proviso clause 6.01(j), Exhibit D17; Proviso clause 4.01(j), Exhibit D19; Proviso clause 4.01(j), Exhibit D21. “AND PROVIDED ALSO THAT the Lessee shall at all times, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP INDEMNIFIED THE OWNER from and against any and all loss damage or liability (whether criminal or civil) suffered by the Owner as a result of the breach of Lessee of this provision, or any other wrong doings on the part of the Lessee in relation thereto.” e. Clause 6.03(e), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.03(e), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.03(e), Exhibit D21. “To repair replace or install if so required by the Owner or the appropriate authority the electric meter, wiring installation and equipment as well as water meter, piping installation and equipment within the Golf Course and Buildings in respect of any damage, caused to the same by the Lessee, and for such purposes to use only the contractors approved by the Owner to carry out any electrical or plumbing works within the Golf Course and Buildings.” f. Clause 6.03(h), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.03(h), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.03(h), Exhibit D21. “Not to install or use in the Golf Course and Buildings any plant apparatus machinery or equipment which consumes electricity not metered through the meters S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 21 of 26 from which the Lessee’s consumption of electricity is calculated.” g. Clause 6.03(k), Exhibit D17; Clause 4.03(k), Exhibit D19; Clause 4.03(k), Exhibit D21. “At all times hereafter to INDEMNIFY AND KEEP INDEMNIFIED THE OWNER against all actions proceedings claims demands costs damages and expenses which may be levied brought or made against the Owner by reason of any act default or omission of the Lessee its servants agents or licensees whatsoever.” iv. Since the Third Party had signed and agreed to Exhibits D17, D19 and D21 which containing the above clauses, the Third Party was bound by the said clauses which the Third Party ought to indemnify and/or keep indemnified the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s claim; v. SECONDLY, the Alleged Meter Tampering (which is denied) happened from 1.12.2011 until 14.10.2014. During that time, the Third Party was the tenant of the said Premises which the said Premises was under the possession and control of the Third Party; vi. It is submitted that it is unlikely the Defendant tampered the meter as this did not benefit the Defendant. On the contrary, the Third Party would be getting benefit from tampering the meter since the said Premises was under the possession and control of the Third Party. Thus, it is submitted that the Third Party is the party who is tampered with the meter installation/meter at the said Premises, not the Defendant; S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 22 of 26 vii. Moreover, if the witness statements given by SP1, SP4 and SP5 are acceptable by this Honourable Court, it is submitted that SP1, SP4 and SP5 had testified that when they conducted the Alleged Inspection (which is denied), the alleged worker opened the meter room door for them and affixed the business stamp of “Permas Jaya Golf Club (managed by GHL Golf Academy)” on Exhibit P9. SPK1 had admitted that the business stamp of “Permas Jaya Golf Club (managed by GHL Golf Academy)”, appeared on Exhibit P9 belonged to him.” [19] Section 29 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and O.55 r.2 ROC states that all appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing and shall be brought by giving a notice of appeal within fourteen days from the date of the decision appealed from. Based on the record of appeal filed and the written and oral submissions by the appellant and respondent, I found that the sessions court judge had erred in her findings and had failed to appreciate the facts and law properly. [20] In the Court of Appeal case of UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd & Anor v Allan Chong Teck Khin & Anor [2021] 3 MLJ 107, Supang Lian JCA opined as follows: “PRINCIPLES OF APPELLATE INTERVENTION [28] Foremost on our minds are the two tests, namely, ‘plainly wrong’ test and ‘insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence’ test for appellate interference in a subordinate court’s finding. In respect of the two tests, the Court of Appeal held as follows in Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97 at pp 98–99: S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 23 of 26 “(2) Generally, an appellate court will not intervene unless the trial court was shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision or where there had been no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence. Judicial appreciation of evidence meant that a judge who was required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. He must, when deciding whether to accept or to reject the evidence of a witness, test it against relevant criteria. Thus, he must take into account the presence or absence of any motive that a witness may have in giving his evidence. Where contemporaneous documents existed, he must test the oral evidence of a witness against these. He must also test the evidence of a particular witness against these. He must also test the evidence of a witness against the probabilities of the case. The principle central. to appellate interference is that a decision arrived at by a trial court without judicial appreciation of the evidence may be set aside on appeal.” [29] The Court of Appeal has reiterated in Ong Leong Chiou & Anor v Keller (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2019] MLJU 38; [2019] 3 MLRA 322 at p 329 that: “[25] We are mindful of the limited role of the appellate court in relation to the findings of facts made by the court of first instance. The general principle is that the conclusion of a trial judge is a finding of fact on the oral evidence based on the demeanour and credibility of the S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 24 of 26 witness before him or her. Generally, such finding ought not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is plainly wrong. It would not be sufficient to warrant an appellate interference merely because the appellate court entertains doubt whether such finding is right (see: Lee Ing Chin & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 2 MLJ 97; [2003] 1 MLRA 95; Gan Yook Chin & Anor v Lee Ing Chin & Ors [2001] MLJU 21; [2004] 2 MLRA 1). [30] In Mohamed bin Abdullah v Chah Hea Seng [1980] 2 MLJ 282; [1980] 1 LNS 48, the Federal Court held: “The decision of the learned judge was clearly not a specific finding of fact but a finding of facts which are really inferences drawn from facts specifically found, and on the principles enunciated in Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd [1955] AC 370, we feel more at liberty to form an independent opinion on the conclusion which should reasonably be drawn.” [21] Last but not least in Paya Terubong Estates Sdn Bhd v Pusaka Warisan Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 MLJ 463, the learned Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) was of the view: “One can, of course, quite well appreciate an appellate court's reluctance to disturb the primary exercise of discretion. This is because a court of appeal in a matter such as the present does not possess an original discretion, its initial function being one of review only. However, where, as in the present instance, it is amply demonstrated that the judge in whom the primary discretion is vested S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 25 of 26 has failed to take into account relevant considerations, it is the duty of this court to say so and to intervene and set matters right by an exercise of its own discretion.” [22] Ergo the appellant’s appeal was allowed with costs. Dated: 21st December 2023 Signed (ASLAM BIN 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 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 26 of 26 COUNSEL For the Appellant: W. H. Chew Messrs. K H Loo & Co Advocates & Solicitors No. 16-01, Jln Bestari 2/2 Taman Nusa Bestari 81300 Skudai Johor For the Respondent: C K Yap Messrs. C. K. Yap & Partnes Advocates & Solicitors No. 21A, Jln. Sutera Tanjung 8/2 Taman Sutera Utama 81300 Skudai Johor S/N 32d/bLBBLUWdep1D2Ea43w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

W-02(NCC)(W)-1802-10/2019

PERAYU Stone Master Corporation Berhad RESPONDEN 1. ) Dato Koh Mui Tee 2. ) Datuk Lee Hwa Cheng 3. ) Datin Chan Chui Mei 4. ) STARFIELD CAPITAL SDN BHD

Civil Appeal - Setting aside a consent judgment - Section 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Evidence Act 1950 - Whether the Appellant had successfully proven that the consent judgment was obtained through fraud - Appeal dismissed

21/12/2023

YA Dato' Hashim Bin HamzahKorumYA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruYA Datuk See Mee ChunYA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=57c12c69-f5d2-49a3-8323-5ff8a7bdad00&Inline=true

21/12/2023 15:36:27 W-02(NCC)(W)-1802-10/2019 Kand. 199 S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N aSzBV9L1o0mDI1/4p72tAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal H—o2 mac) (H) —1au2—1u/2019 Kand. 39 2,/12/2nu ,» 7.9 ;, IN VHE COURT or APPEAL or MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) ILAPPEALN mm mm Mann 1nI2o1n BETWEEN STONE MASTER CORPORATION EERHAD (No. SYARIKAT: 498839-X) AFPELLANY AND 1. DATO KOH Mul TEE (NO. KP: 550705-1n-6141) 2. DATUK LEE MWA CHENG (NO. KP: 610701-fll-B223) 3. mm cum cuur MEI (N0. KP: 7n1o31-105415) 4. STARFIELD CAPITAL sun BHD (No. SVARIKAT: 911026-D) RESPDNDENTS [\n The Mallerof cwn sum No: WA-ZZNCC-232AD6I2D17 m the Hwgh com or Malaya m Kuala Lumpur Belween 1 5w asxxvuL1onmum4v7zuAA mm Sum INNDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm STONE MASTER CORPORATION BERHAD (No SVARIKATAQHBS9-X) ..PLAlNTIFF AND 1 one KOH MUI TEE mo. KP: saums-10-aw) 2. DATUK LEE HWA CHENG (NO KP.e1u1o1Ja14a223) 3 DATIN CHAN CHUI MEI (N0. KP: 701031-mans) <1. STARHELD CAPITAL SDN BHD (N0 SVARIKAT: 971026-D) DEFENDANTS comm RAVINTHRAN AIL PARAMAGURU, JCA SEE MEE CHUN, JCA HASHIM HAMIAH, JCA GROUNDS or JUDGMEN1 2 5w >su?WL1unmuHMv72IAA mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm Tln Lnw on sminu Asian u cnnunt Judgmam or omr [331 in Ihe nresem case, me parainouni issue beiore me learned HCJ is wnexnaime Consent Judgment snieied bsiween insAppeiiani and he 4" Respondent ought to be set aside [:1] Fiisi and iuiemdsi, a cnnsenl iudginem di dimer is regarded in iaw as a conlracl, supeiadded witn lhe court's coinmaind. [:5] in nn Geek Lln v. u KIlllI[1DU4]3 MLJ 4a5;[2on41z cu wt, Mchd Nuumnmad FCJ [as he then was) speaking lor the Federal cmm slated lhal ~s. (1; On the iim ISSUE, which is related in qilsshon (1), . nonunt Iuddmcnr or war Is not ma as a contact. Ind Jllblwr to th- incidrmt of: contract, bvcausn mm is supwlddvd mo commlnd or me com, and its low: and disc: dorivas from the contract bmmn me pmiu Iudlny In, or uvldlncud by, or Incurporllod in, ma conslrvlludqmonl oi order. A cons-nr mu must no ylven us Iullcuntrictual gum, av-n rm mlltu In in inmvosumvy my in "II mien (sea para 390 @ p 238, Haibwys Law: a! Engisnd, Am edn mi .77; ws gamei inm mid Dlabaslfifln Mi! {1} me agmemen! on me ieinis reached beiwesn me parties at me inieiiocurory slage oven action is a contract nsxmn the parties and (i; (he canssm fuiigmsnt or did.» aiisind our :7! lhsf contract is arm a contract between (ha Dame: sxcsm uiame Vstreus superadded wim me commalidoflhs man‘ in snm, Ihelfi aid Ma mnmms, ans, helm: rhl mun makes iris oidsi and two, any 01: wderr: made Arie: we older 15 made ms nu: contract mslges into the second oorilvatt That being me cass, slim‘ dun. D7119! being made, NW flrst coniracr will have to be sapawrely considered on in binding ellec.’ 1: sin :§xEWL1unmDHMv72IAA 'NnI2 s.ii.i Ilnlflhlv M“ be .5... M mm n. niimruiily MIN; m.n.n vn AFVLING WM! bmsdon Incidents Ms carmacr. This slltlmamis relevant in ma plesunt apnea/Irr which ma firatmnlracfts rnvomad as no order had been made ny the cowl. The Iealned ma/[W99 show/A1 have pmceedad in ma firs!‘ mass In considur so/sfy on ma bimifng arm of ma firs! mnlmct warram mgsrd as In wnamer ornor me now! had made my ordstmamc. For me purpose, she shnuldnave rnomu mm ms farttslssdfng to ma agmemen! and sxammsd me lads and men uaaraea on lls ornamg em: band on ma mcmrus ol a contract. And rr she considers mar ma firs! mrmacl was me pames than we pany Laugh! to he anawea la rune mm It mruo make an arm m rsmrs accormng m ma merrrs oflhs Iscts as uapoaar: in ma ulfidavft or Mr G Proctor. Instead, by necessary /nu:/{cut/on, me wvcseaad to eorrsrurr on (M wurrng sflncl ol ms nrsr corrrracr sfmulransous/y wrm the second contact when she named mar no comm Order was rum at an on me am contract In snm, hsrdscrsion was armpry based on ma lack ararr alder made by ma mm In raagam or me rm contract. mm due respect we had Isr!-id lo axarcrsa her msuarrorr judtdausly. ~ (-mphuu wand) [39] W10! its status as a judgment or war of the court, a cunsam judgmsntoramermnnct be vaned or set aside except under me sup rule Mar :1 has been reguhariy oblamed, emerea, or drawn up. [an] Hawevsr. ma oanssnuudgmenl words: may be impeached Ihmugh a fresh aclmn if .1 was obtained by fraud or where vunner ewdence coma nol pessibly have been adduced at me original hearing :2 am asrxWL1onrr.um4n71IAA -ma saw n-nhnrwm be used w mm In: nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm VI] anum WM fl [M] \n Hock Hui Bank and v Sahari bln Murld [1951] a ML: 14:: 1195011 LNS 92,01: Federm Counlhraugh Chang Mm Tat FJ (as he man was) he\d' 'CIur1y mu Dam! in: no pawl! until! my uppumaon In mu um- Action to ma: vary or :11 um. ljudymlnl requlafly mama um I! nu bun wntond at an oniar arm 1: Is dawn up, oxcopr under an sllp mic m o 2:; r, 11 Rules allhs supmna Cour! 195710. 20: n Ru/es ollhu Hrgh Cnufl 19:30 ; so 15: as rs memry ru wired mom in sxpnsssmg ms fnlsnlmn oflhe com Ra s: Nazarrw Ca. 12 on D as, Ksrsey v sauna M12] 2 KB 452 Hsssran u Junes 1191412 KB 421‘ unless I: m s/udgmen! by delaul! or made m ms absenca ofa parry.-3! we may or heanng But udymont or order has bun only/nod by Iluud of mm. iumm nvldnnca which could not pol-sibly haw bum Adducnd 1: ms orig/ml n-mug I. forthcoming, a Irish acuan wum. to impeach the angina: ]m1yrnIM‘ Hlp Foong Hang v News 5 Cu. [1P1B]AC say and Jonosao v. B9ani[V93!7]AC 299. me neamg ollne amen wfllm a plopsr case be expedited‘ smnn v Panza! 55 SJ 5127 " (emphasis zddod) [42] smca me consent juagmem or order 15 also an order ov me cum to carry out me Lxwnflacl uewveen Ihe pames, i( can also be se| sskie an me same grounds mat a I:onIra::| can he set asms. [43] In Khzw Poh Chhuan v, Mg Galk P-ng a. up wan chuan a. Ors. uses] 2 cu «as, me supreme com speakmg |hmugh Peh Swee cm" FCJ (as he men was)‘ new as Ialluws‘ 1: 5w asu?WL1unn.nm4p71IAA -ma Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm ua nvwmuly mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm "A conunt ordcr is In ordul of (III com carrying out an aynlmtnt bafwnn lln plrflls I! used to be mougrii ai ans lime me: only 5 fimund aflraud cam cause a mnservl order ra as as! was iris now wellserl/sd mat a cerium om: om nu mum an «in mm wounds 1.: than on which M lnrlvmunkmlybv III is again the Nilddslsfiald Banking Co supra “ see s.g (umphuls mm) [44] Again, in Eldladdln mu Mohd Mlhldln EAnor V Arab Malaysian Flmnm Bhd [mu 1 ML: 39:; [1:99] 2 cu 15. Peri Swee Chin FCJ (as he then was) in deiivering me iuagniein or me Federal noun, held as follows “rn. grounds rufunnd to for sitting uldo u comm! am: or - judglmcnl by conunl In ymlmds which buslnllly mm to canslnsui ad idem or me free consent or parties to . blndiny -gmnmiz or convict /t is elomervlary that im 75 proved that there are grounds wmn vieieie men free consent, the agloemeril is noi binding. Now: Donsenlordevuls/udgemenlby conssrvris undoubtedly based on an agreement ol bolh parties where conssm to me sgfeemem‘ mus! W snuuii: rim bssn iiss in the firs! place inns aglsemenl upon wnicii a consent onisrorludgernenl by ED113671! is based, i's vmatsd by any ground recognized in equity as viliatfrlg mu inee consent, Mn 5: {ram mlslske. Iota! (at/um nl wlvsidsraticn, (see Nuddssfie/d Banking Ca V Henry Lisle! [1995] 2 cn 273 and ma ems: med mmin), zimi such n pcrhctad consunl ordorodudganlcnl by cans-ntcouldba sotasldo :4 N a§xEWL1onmD\1!4D72IAA Nata s.ii.i Ilnlflhlv M“ be used M mm n. niiin.ii-y MIN; dun-mm VII nF\LING WM! E ln . [rash .sc1lon flied hr the pltrpou Grounds wnlon would vmm luch lm conunl would also Include misnllnuntl ‘on, amnion. Ind unduo Influunca nnd otnlrymunds ln nqnlzy ~ (nmphuls Iddud) 1451 Ong c.l (Malaya) (as he man was) m dahvenng me Judgment cl |he Federal Cou«1lnTong Ln Hwa &Anorv. c Fah y. Chln Ah Kwl[I971] 2 MLJ 75;[1l11]1 LNS 14: had «ms \o say: Ah Kwi and Tang Chung "Arm - ludymont by consent nu boon name and mu-d, it cannot lflorvnrds has varied on ma gmuna oi lnlsuk oxupr lol muons sulrlcl-nl to u! was an -gr-omunl (saw/lltomsy—GsnarxaI y. romlrns ) (1577—5[ 7 on n alas The general mlc ls um um - ludwmonr lm burl passod and unloml, mm wnnn it lus lmn tnkln by consnnl nna undcr 5 lnlsralm, ms Caufl cannot 5.: ll ulttt othuvllu mun ln a (rush aczlan bmuyhr for ma purnosn unless (.5; mm nas been a clerical mistake or an error nrtslny rmln .n accldnnul! slip or omlnlon, or (£7) zneluvymenl as drawn up does not can-my sm. mm ll». calm zcnlally docldod .n.1 Intondod Ia docfdc, ln may ol wlncn cases the annllcmon may be made by mollun rn me anllarv lsns Amswunh V VI/lIdIng)[1596]1 on 573 The same rule muslapply, a lonlon, where» m names have smsredlntu an agvsemervl ln pmsuanoe nl the terms 2/ senlemenl embodied m the consent orusr ~ (emphasis addld) [46] The Arlbellanl, in lha present case, pleaded ms: (he Cansenl Judgment was lrauaulenuy ablamed and augm to be set asme. :5 5w >§xEWL1unmDHMv72IAA -ms Sum ..n... M“ be used M mm n. mwwnyulv Mm; mm. VII mum pm [47] with these tnts pnncipies or law in mind. we ounsidu me issues naised by an parties to this appeal. First issue: wimti-r The Findings oi nu High Coun In The sc suit can E: Usld As Evldunea to Prove That Thu Rnpondinu Had conspired To nolruud Thu Appellant [40] Belore us, the Appeilam submillad Ilia! (he Consent Judgment was lainlsd witn iiiegaiity ano riaua, as evidenced by ins findings oi the Hign Cmm in the SC Suil. The Appeilarlli throughout its submiasion, had relied heavily on me findings onne i-iign com in tne sc Sun la pmve its ciaini aigainsi me Resuoridenis. [cu] Aoooming to tne Appalianl. iiie findings oi ins High Conn in the sc suit had stitmn tnai me 3*’ Respunaeni had Oommilled various oieeoiies unaerine CMSA 2007, namely lhal the ct“ Respondent: was in a position olpawerand wnlrol IM me Appeiiani, and she was insiniinentai in ii)gening tns Appensnito lake up ine Rmia iniuion ioen imin ins 4* Rasporidem ano (iii proposing and getting the Appellant lo enter into tne agency agreements witti the 23 PRO mmpanies. was instrumental in tne ionmaiion oi the 23 PRC subsidiary companies has appointed puppet directors ior me 23 PRC subsidiary companies sa ttiai stie could have fun control over these cumbariifii 15 sin b§xEWL1oflmDi1!4p72lAA -we s.ii.i ...i..i whi be in... M mm no niiii.ii-i MVM5 m.i.ii via AFVLING Wm! .1, was the sole signatory ot the 2: pm: Substdtary Companies’ bunk aocounts wtlhout the knowteage 01 me Aooettanre board of atreexere e. had ooncucled and taonoated the alleged lelleroiaulhorisalton by lhe 23 PRC Subsidiary Comparttss gtving harms mandate to set up those eompames; and 6 had kapnhe AppaHan|'s hoard ofdtreclurs tn tne darkabcut ner acl es with the 2:5 PRC companies and the 23 23 PRO Subs ery companies and iaiteu to atactose her oontttm et Interest and retated perry (ransacunns. [so] Funnermoret me Aopenant auonmteu mat me decisimt was upheld on meat to the Court oiADpeaI, and me am Respondent had lattsd la ootain leave to aaoeat to tne reaerer Court. [511 Firstly‘ we hold that me retevency and admissibtlity of judgmems, orders‘ or decrees as evidenae tn any met ere subtect to tne hmtlsd dmumstances set out under 990110!!! 40 I0 43 0' [ha Evtdsnua Ac(195U (“EA 1950"). [52] For ease et reference, sections 40 to 4:4 et tne EA 1950 are set out betow. [531 section an otme EA195o reads: “Secfion 447. Fmvrous/udgmertts ratevanr to Dal .s second son or mat :7 SW asu?WLtenrnuttMn71tAA None Sum ...na.. MU be used m mm o. nttmruflly sun; dun-mm VI] was Wm! rm Ixmoncv or any ludgmonv, mdnr or decise which by law pnvinls any court (rum tlklny cagnlnnu an sulrorholdmg a mar la a Mayan: vac: wnan ma woman 1: whom» an court augm In mm aognixanaa of the sun or to hold ma tnal - mnpnaans addcd} [54] Semen 4| ullhe EA 1950 slates that -sacnan 41 Relevancy olcsrmnjudgments m pwbits, itc., /ulrsdtclron (1) A nna: ynagananx. am: or down on com, In ma ax-min ol pmbltt, mllrimom , Idminlry :1! bankruptcy jurisdlcllan, wman confers upon ar taku away from any pmon any regal cnmn-r, at wmcn dodaras any Dirsun to be enmtsd In any sum character, or m bs erml/ed in any aaaamc thing, ml as agarns! any apes/nau paraon but am/are/y "a mllvlnr wnan ma uistumv 0/zny such leyzl cnmcm or ma um ofnny such plrsan In any such thing I: nlnvnm (2; Sucmudgmenl, order or mm .s canuuam Moo!- (a) that any lugal character man It aanrm acuusd at ms lime wnan ma/'ufi9"Venf. older or dmaa came into oaeralfan, 0») that any /sgal chalactsr to man u mlms any such person to as arm!/ed acduad to marparson at ma ma when ma /udgmsm, older or 1190732 declares n to have accrued to Ma! person, (0) me! any /aga/ character wen u take: away from any such person mm at ma mna /mm wmch ma /udgmsnt, order at decree oeelarsd mar n had csassd or should cease, and 15 N .s.muann.umam-aa ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. ann.u-y mm; dun-mm vn anum wrm [55] [56] (a) mm anymmg to whrclv rl docllrss any person to be so srml/Id was me prunerry of that person at Ihe nme hum wen we judamartl, under or decree oeclsm man It nan cson or showd be his property " (amphuls addod) sacmon 42 onne EA 1950 reads “Semen 42. Relswlvcy and slice! onuugmenrs, war: or deems: other man [Hose menvonea In mm" 41 Judgments, omsrs arduaeu me: than moss monl/cued m sswon 4v ave rs/evsm inhty mm to mum on public nalun I-Ilvant to the Inquiry, am such juagnvents‘ olden or devees are not concluxlvr proofoi that which my stats. ' (ampvusls added) secuun 43 oi the EA slates that: "secuon 43. ./uagmsnu. an, other than lhose mamruned m secmms 4a to 42 when Islevanr. ./udgmsnrs, mm m declues new man Mass mumonodln actions I0, 41 um 42 m Imll m unless an um-nu alsucn /‘udymnnl, mu or cum I: . Inc: In Issm ov 1: nlmnr -mm some other prvvixiun of Mix Act. “ :9 sw .s.muan,..unm.u-M -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [51] V71 parflcman Mluslratlnn (at In secficn <33 of lhe EA clearly mennans as ianuws: “/LLUSTRA news (a) A am 5 up-rmry sun 0 Ion Nbtl which rvnocu upon - ch :1! mm. c rrr much can says ma: nra manar a//aged to be Imerlous /5 true, and Ihe murnsrancas are such that It is probably we rrr sad: cass or m rrsmrsr A obtains a damn nyairm c fur dzmagls on the gmund ma: 5 mud to main aul hl5]ustlflc-llon. rm flat I: Imlnmn as zmvmn 5 And 1:, " (urnuhnls man) [55] Turning up me lacts or me presem case, we found that me grounds juagmeru m me so sun relied on bylhe AppeHanl cm nn| Ian nude! any 01 the DYOVVSWHS under semen: 40 to A2 nf the EA1Q5D above [sq We pause heve to note Ihal |hIs noun had, on 17.3 2023, allawsd the Appeuanvs applicauon rn Encl 151 to adduoe Inc said grounds or ;udgmen| as (rash euaanoe. At most, the said grounds or wdgmem are re|svan| and admissible under saaion 43 of me EA 1950. [so] we are nlths oansruared mew that under sacnor. 43 onne EA 1950‘ me produ n ma previous Judgment rnere4y establishes the ausrsnaa at a pnor decrsron onhe noun and nolmng mere 10 sru asx£wL1onrnDm4n71IAA wane sum nu-uhnv M“ be used m mm as uvVmruH|y mm; dun-mm vn muus Wm Imroductton m Tnle is the Appellanfs appeal agetnst the deotsron M the leamad High court Judge ("HCJ") who had dtsrntssed me Appellants aopltoatten to set aslde e oonsent judgment dated 30.5.2017 (“filo con.-nt Judumunl‘ between the 4" Respondent aetne ptalntltl and thaAppeHanl as the deterldanl in Kusla Lumpur High Court Civll Suit Nu WA-22NCC» 195-us/2017 ("sun ms") [21 tn Suil195.me 4" Respondent claimed e total sum o1 RMIB milllorl due and owtng by the Apoellant under two separate loan agreements, d5|Bd 14.1.2015 and 19 1.2016, respectively, the detatls ofwhich shall be discussed later tn mls judgmem. [3] on 29.5.2011. the 4'" Respondent med e notioe el app|lca|iorl praying «or several orders. lnctudtng restrainlng the Appellant ttonr removlng, dealtng, or dtspoetng of tts eeeete up to RM“? rnt ten. [41 on ao.5.2m7, the Appellant and the 4'" Respondent recorded the consent Judgment belore ttte Hlgh Cnurl Ihraugh tttetr reeoecttve seltcttore. lt was agreed and reeetded between the partles tn the consent Judgmenl, among otners, that the Appe||an| was to pay RM1B ntilhon to the 4“ Respondent [51 On 19.5.2017, the Appellant fllsd a tresh suil to set aside the Consent Judgmenl through Kuala Lumour l-ltgn court Clvil sult Ne, w»:- ZZNCC-232-06/2017 ("sult 2:2"). sun 23: was heard oelore the learned HCJ below. 3 stn a§xEWL1unrnDHMn72IAA -nee s.n.t ...n.. M“ t. used m mm o. nllmruflly am; dun-mm VII .rtttne wnxl my We amrm our eamsi aeciaian H1 Dntuk s uaiimruppsn a On v nsmk sun Anwsr bln nmnim Ind oum appssis [2015] 4 ML! :4 in which it was neia as loiiows: -121; Our 5 4: is in pari maisria with s 43 of ms /ndi'sri Ewdsmx Act. isassu on ma Indian auznonuas cited to nun, reamed /m1io4s/ aaininissionar mnsiuaau that in. rurlnnl ior ms mclmunl s 43 is that wary ms is us be tuned .s a sisss ny ism; and ms production of: pnvlausjudgmlnt manly nubllsnu mo uxmnncn on Mar decision. rim. is no pmummion mm a prior/‘udgmcnt is ma corrlnl docislan an ms mam! What ina iaw oi ms iuaicais ssiaoiisnss is ma: ane cannot go behind me umaian in csnain aimiiai lactualciasss based an ma gmurid aipubiic policy run run in 1354:: in such ca mulrbl pmvodindcpvnannniw 1221 me nseionsi underlying a 43 can on gissnsci imm ms sisisnmn: WI Hi;//iriglon‘s case wnicn IS as in//awr ’TIis Cam wnian naa la try ms uaiin for damages knew nothing af ins evidsncs inai was before me Iwvmnal wan it cannot krmw what arguments vmle addressed to ma court or Ms! Influence the court in smving si its decision. Morsovsi, the issue in ma crimi‘Iia/ pmoesdfng in rial identical with ma! iaisea in claim for damages ‘In mar words, u said in ma Imliln clsu OIGODI/krisnna sup»-an vnininsiu Aininsi And Ors AIR 1972 Ker 196 : ii is the duty aims caun m scrullnlu ms saununm or validity or opinion widunss smsising its min inuupsnusnn judgnllni. in in. can on pnviouuuagmonr sucn scnnlny is ilnpassibla bscausn in. sun trying in subsuqunnt cm cannot nopvn lhl cm mdhur iron mo inwies ss mm mun is hearing .n appcaloris ntrying (In pm!/Iaus use an Irish Ivldoncm rm court in ms subuquon: cln has to divide it n N .s.muan,..amim-an ma Sum IHIWDIY win he used m mm as annmuu sun; nan-mm VII AFVLING WM! on thy mltvriult bviun it Ixlmisiny its own Influpendenr /udgmlnl . /231 IN ms face 0/ omwriaimmg aumomisa iocaiiy and iiaiii ioretgii juflsdlcflafls in paniwiar UK (caiors the slaltncry Vm‘iNlnNOrI) and /nciia mat riad been coiiaideiad by ma Iesmed /udicis/ Gammlssroner that a judgment In a anminai use cllmol in uud :1 pmol ol 1 not In Issue In 1 civil cue for mini for dlmlflls, we are mdmed, aa ma /eamedjtldmilal aammiaamiiar did, to agree witn ma above smsmsiit. /24} niaiaims, with Isguld to ma delendarilf aelerice aliustificslioni we are iri agrauiimit with the ieamediumciai commissioiiei that s 0 am- Evldancc Act would bc a bar to ma dlftsndlnls to my on trio /udgniunt or am: or doc!" annotiior court procooding mom 5:: It is I ciiniinai pmcndinp. " (emphasis mm) [:12] As a matter oHac1,whsHhs Appellant smigh| to do in the preserfl oasis was to adiiiii certain passages mm «is High Court’: gmunds oi iuagiiiam in ma so Sm! as evidenoe oi conspiracy to iiiiuia or to daiiaud on \he part oi the Respondents [53] TI1eAppe||ant submilled mat the decision oime High court in the SC suit, which has been atrmisd an anneal, binds this court Reierence was made to the C/aufl ohappeai case at soti Kant Pan 5 on v Fa Pmpmtaa sdn Bhd and olmr appeals [20021] 5 ML! 448. [64] However, we are oi the uortstdemd view that the lam in Goh Keat Pori (supra) can be distinguished iron the facts in ma pieserit case. 12 sin a§xEWL1onmD\1!4p77IAA -ma s.ii.i IHIVVDIY vim be ta... m mm ta aiiiii.ii-y MVM5 dnunvtnnl VII nF\LING WM! [as] in (Sch Keal Pah (supra), me plainiifl med a SIM against tne delandants, ciaiming that the deiendants had agreed to sail tnerr iand ‘spas succsssrbms’, even though tne issues on the uairdity atthe Fartim agreements and their eflecls have been mnciusiueiy decided by the Federal Cowl in andtnercase (Char Fhaik Harv Flrlim Propcnlos sun and [1397] 3 MLJ 18!). [as] Thereiore, the court emppeai in (sun Keat Pan (supra) nad nghtiy eeneiudsd mat the doctrine Mtss[ut1i'caia was applicable, and tne plainlifl was estgpped tram such a dam against the deiendants. [51] It is also pertinent In note that lhs Fsdarai courra judgment In Char Paik Har (supra) pertaining to the Farirm agreements was admitted and considered by the High court and the caurt uIAppea| in Gran Keat Pan (supra) to determine the issue etwhemer tne piaintiifs claim was caught under tne daclrins ufrssjudicata This is cieariy aiiuwed undersection 40 at the EA 1950. but tnrs is not the case here. [as] A oansmerahly similar issue was raised in or Wjandrin v Karpal singn A on man] :4 MLJ 22 in which medeisndant, in tnatcase. sought to attack the piaintitrs character by adrn ing as eurdenee certain passages (mm the Judgment at the court eiAppeai In a separate criminal proceeding. [aw] in addressing Ihls issue, Kamaianatnan Rainam J (as ne tnen was) in DF \/ijandran v Karpal singn 5. ors tsupra) heid as tdiirms "There ra no doubt me: the existence of me /udgmenr al the Court 0/ Apnea! is not a rest in issue rn tins sass. Adrviin-d/y whit lhv firs! 1; SN asu?WL1enmi:Hi4n72IAA wane Sum ...na.. M“ as used a mm as niimruflly sun; dun-mm via .nuua Wmi uwronunnx Is mung In do Is to admit a conarn passm tram -In judqmenl arm cam oIAppuI n Ividvncv In ml: all: I: I: clear mm amnII:IIod authorities an many zyalnstlne Ilrsrdofunduvran mIs scam Sarkar an EV/dance (150. Ed) voI I sIsIas sI I: an para 2 as raIIaws- rm on/m namnu amcung 1 4: appeaIrtu’bs’MxYlo/d:’{1)'Ia’ — treal every casa s cIass by Izsenso that Ina Iuagmnr cIsIIm-d In an us. Inly nor be avnflod olby panics to snaum ass. and (2; Ia marmam Ina Independsnos 12/ scans by pm-nIIng Inc [mm s Irom suommrnq won lhl noun hnriny lhlrrcasu In. iudgmonls olorlnr mus Again up 539 para 4 ‘Mon Is no proyisron In the Act by which ms nctunl mIsIon mm Iindings Inlvld at In a pnvlous ludgmanr cm In und 1: uvlrloncv to dccida khu twinks which an In issue In . plrllcullr ass. sum s deusron may opersla as res judrcala or be relevant unm ss 40.42 to prove asssmon of a ngm, our nthuwist it Is no mm Innn . mm opInIon oxprund on the Imus M a pamcular case and oafrlrzm V5 IaIayanI In moss cases only In whmh I: Is speaauy Iarsrmt In Ina A41 and M na others I Pumfma y Narvdlal FLT 582 Rampalekha y Rarnman AIR 1933 P ego, Hnendla vRaIneswurNR 1925 F625] Skllcmunls amaus In n pnvioux iudymlnl is not admissible nnnu s Is In n subslquunt can In mid. my palms In Issun [Khubrhiram y Ram on AIR 1951 P am 1. 1.: N a§u?WL1unmDHMp72IAA ma Sum IHIWDIY Mu be used m mm a. nflmnnflly MW; dun-mm vn nF\uNG wrm Almost 70 yaau ago, the PM/y Council had occasion to considsr this Issue ms 7: what n/: Lords-mp s'u Jalm Wallis had )0 say 51 o 192 af Ktlmil sooika Raman moi Smglv NR 1929 PC 99 : Tho Indian Evidvncl A-:1 docs not mlh nnarng of fact arrived :1 on ma aviaoncu boron ma co-in In out can: ovldnnco own: not in anon:-r on. From mi; cm and ms numerous oumoiinos oiioo it seems to me was my mu en. oroducuon an pnvtous/udgmonl Inonly utlblishvt rim uximnu an utter decision. Thsrs IS no presumption that s pnor judgment is mo oonocz decision on ma mono: wnoz me raw oi res judlcaia establishes is me: one cannorga bshind no decision in osrlaln sinniai factual cases based on me mound ol puoiic policy /7! aooonmsnno Guplhan v Annnaiu AmmalAIR 1972 Kev ma, Narayana F7//3! ./ said at p 197. Judgments natcuminq Alndsl ss in to 42 are no: relevant at all In respecl orooinion exomssainerein. They can tmaunl only Ia opinion tvidunze and ooinion -vlrlannl Is qunuuny inadmlsslbll Such oplman evidence is, howewr, aommod under s 45 al ino Evidence Ac! wnon mo oom has to form an uplnion upon 5 point oiiaiaign raw or of science or on 0! as m rdenmy oi Ivandwnlfng bulm such cases n L‘: the duly onns com in scmlrmsu the soundness oi valrdmr 0! opinion svfdence sxemising its own imiansndenl judgment In me am ol 5 previous ,u.1gmoni sucn wuiiny u WPDSSID/a because mo com! (vying me subsequent case camel Ieapen the mo and new it on Ms mums as mno ooun IS Ivsaring an appeal oi is rstzying me pleviau: true on fresh evidenm mo coun In an uitmqu-ni can has to ducide n on on inmriois befam It uxomlslng Its nwn Indapondonl 25 N a§xEWL1onmDHMn72IAA um Sum mun MU he used m mm o. nflmnnflly MVM5 dun-mm VII .nu.uc Wm judymunt. Tlranlon my corrclusrarr rs mu ludgmorru qu- Iwqm-ms end as oxpmsion nluplnlon 1:! tin caurls which pronounce them ue not re/mm -r all Ixupt rum: :5 40 to I2 of mu Evldonco An I aglee and accept [Ive views a! we learned ruuga r em Ihsrelors eonwe//ed lo conduoa that men is naming in ma Evidann Act In mm": Ma nancluslon war we sr arrmrzs or flmilngs or ram In arratrru cm can be used :1 vvlduncn In . iuhsoqulnt us: In decide me perms which in In lssul In (no sunuqulnl om ' (omphnls ended) [10] we agree and endorse the ascreron in DP Vuandran (supra) and relleraie that mere is nothing m me an 1950 which arrows me stalemems orfindings oHav:\s in errmrrercaseco be relevam and edmrssims evidence rn a subsequem case to decide me perms which ere In rssue In |he subsequent case, except M the Judgment, order or decree sought to be admilled (afls under any of me pmvisruns under eearons an ta 43 or me EA 1954:. rn aur mind‘ (Ms Is gerrereuy applicable |o crvrl and crime: Prcoeedmgs since :1 mvowes lhe rule of evrdenoe. [11] For Irre same reason, we agree mm me learned HCJ that 7134) /r was apparent Ihmugllom the Prerrmrrs case me: what 1: had sought to do was to unx mu rzmu rnmion Ionn In ma Illiflltluns made zgainst me 3711 nerermm in sun :15 However, as smart. me: I: a rumor cum cumm rrorrr rm mm and thv mmodits sought by the H. rm in me pr-snnl cast rune 5//sganons rrr sun 335 are made out me ramemss sougm, which rrrcluues rspaymenl tu me Plairmfl‘ 16 sw asx3WL1enrnum4p72IAA -we Sum IHIWDIY wm be used m mm we nrVmrr.HIy mm; dun-mrrl vn nF\uNG wnxr fl ofthe Rn/111.54 mu/mn snegsd/y mcelvsd by the 3rd Deiendard would componsm lb! ma nu-pod wronalul Ion omm ntm Dlmonly by an. Pmmm (:35) /I. apart lrum ma RM15 mnnon loan, mm was any damage sufiurid by tho Plzinlilf by rlasun of any coruplrucy or much ol any or am: wrong. that is «norm: mlkrar Ind on. which an M-Inmr my chaos. to pursue zyalnsr mas. mdtwduars -uogur to 1:. pm a! (no oamprncy and an to mm: mm pcrsnnally Iiabln. ms case was however. many In liquid to ma (Jonson! ./udgmm and a matlubcmun the two companm i lhv Plzintllfznd Mo an Dohndlnr," (omphnla addad) [72] As such, we hold that me Appellant should not be allnwed |o adrml sen ' passages from me mgr. oourrs grounds ol judgmenl in me so sun as evidence av canspwacy m xnjuva in (mud on the pan o! the Respondents. Therelures lor this sppeax. we dusrmss an of |he Appeusnrs references to me findings dune Hwgh coun nu ma sc Suvl. Sncond lssuu: wvmmermo Laanlnd Trial Judge Ermd In HI: Findings on Thu Enact MTM as 144 ordn- [73] The Appellant submmed (hat the weamed HCJ had and In ms nndmgs that me 05 144 Order did rm! exusx at me me me Cnnsem Judgment was entered m|o thus, no party wdmd have been aware orme Get-Aalauan granted undevme as 144 Older. The/wpsuamaxso suhmmed that me weamed HCJ erred in hmdmg that me nrsnsacnons mau me 17 sw a§u?WL1onmDHMp71IAA 'NnI2 Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm me mwwruuly mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm Appeiiam entered Into with min: panics are noi ipsa faclo mm and void under me Turquanifs mis. [74] Aounrliing |n the Appeiiam, me resolution oflhs aoam pi airscmis pamcuiany on 29.5.2017, was mm and void and can no longer stand in am at me as M omsr, which operates re|ruspec1ive|y Hence. Ihe appoimmem oi Messrs. wai Li Tan 5. Cheong (0 acl as the Appellant‘: counsel in SUM 195 and the mstmcuun |0 PW3 In rewrd the Consent Judgmam were also null and void. us] in support of its submission, the Appeiiam isiiaa on ma High can ease u1Dnm' Jafhr bln Mohd All &Anorv.lan(In and 5 Or: (Publll; Bunk Bhd, lnltrvnnor) [2|1|11]4 MLJ zin. no] The same issue was already canvassed news the Veamed iic.i below In our View, the learned HCJ had canecfly aisunguisiiaa me iapis VI Dale‘ JEIWZI bin Mona An &Ano! (supra) wim Ihe facts in ma present case‘ as can be seen belaw ‘[101] In Jasalers anon naming dons pulsuam :9 ma rssalulron War zo ma rrljurlcflafl was set aside No momury Iunucrlan by in: new band mrougn ma imrv-nu bank was s. side 11021/n i/is case at hand, the scam rsso/ulian of 29*" May 2017 had been lmplemontod no cerium Judgment was wmred fritu ai ma lrmfi when me OM19! in 05 144 had no: been made Nlllhar the coun nor rho p-mos in sun 195 com nan bson um um um pm: in as 144 would ha mm. with me deolslatron in paragraph (31. ' (nmphasis addad) 23 sin a§xEWL1unmD\1!4p71IAA -ma Sum IHIVVDIY Mu as used a mm aa aiiiimii-y MW; dun-mm VII AFVLING wrui [171 in aduirion, (here is nothing to show that PW3 had any rmwieage or lhe irregularillss in ina management at me Appsiiani cnmpany The vmrram ta act was also signed by the 1" Respondent. who was still the managing director of the Appelianfs campariy at that rnaleviai time Based on ma circumstances cfthe present caser we agree wrm tho iearnau HCJ that the Appellants appointed counsel was entilled to assume that the Appellant had acted within its conslitutiun and power and is protected by this rule. [73] We also agree with the iearrrad HCJ's findings mat the dealing or transaction bamaen me Appaiiani and is appointed counsei is valid by applying me pnncrples or real and csiensrbia autrienry and me ‘indoor maM9emen| rule‘ or |he TuNuarrd‘s me, [79] In L» mm Kaong v. Fadason Holdlnns Sdn and 5 Omar Appnals [2n11] 1 cm 295, «ms Cuun‘ inrougn Her Ladyship Mary Linn JCA (mwl FCJ) mi It is without dawn! ma: Lee was the Managing Director or me rsspondarrl at ma nmarrai Irma. It would be slh m say that . Mznzylnq Dlncfar is glnlnlly auinonsaa lo rranun um sure: or propoms on ban." 0! ma respondent including anrenng ana siqniny on aanan afthe mspondlnl such SPA: as than producod Ind admlmd at war. /ri fact, ma aumemrcily and man oma corilems in air the SPA: are not challenged rira SPA: won genuine sgrearnanis in salt ma prunarrras lo ma appai/anra. wnar was aisparaa was sinrniy ma matter or payrnarris The responvenr euuld not naca any ayysllanfs paymsrils ll! man moonlx, and lot that reason my that Ins apperranis irm conspired wrrn Lee to dslraud ma Iesporidunl. mm enasa clmumsmnccs, w. lully agm mm in. nppullunu inn my turned 29 SW asxxWL1unn.DHi4n72IAA warn s.rr.r ...nn.r win he used m mm in nrwirrafily sun; dun-rinrrl VII nriurm wrui fl JO was many lmsnlous whon finding man the -ppomm wm not uvrlrtodlo myon the me In Turqulnd '5 ca rn lppclllnts wm pcrfoclly anfillod ta rely on me real and osnnsrm -umomy or La as the SPA: mm mm uni nmbrcublo. Conssquenl/)4 ma Laa /sttevs are rrgnuy swdence me: me apaa//ama mm re/y an In prvvs each 0! the» claws - (ampnam addnd) [DD] Them Is nmmng in me evxdence \0 suggest that the Consent Judgment, which was recorded by 1haApps|Ianl mmugn PW3 In S|A\l195. was amamau megauy ov mmugn wand. [31] In addmon, we agree w|tl1me\eamat1 HCJ that Vick of mandate 077 the pan Mme oounsd per se Is not a valwd ground to sel aswde it consent Judgment. Any admn Io reouvev any losses can be «am by the chem agamsl me counsel (see Wlugh and mum v HB Cllllnrd a Sam Lu: and anolhur [1932] Ch 314, Ln rang Siang Y Lu aaax Thyi Holdings Sdn mm [mm] 5 pm 1:; [ma] 4 cu :34, and Skinning Cual Sdn Bhd (appolnted recaivar and manager) a Ors v Malaysia Eulldillg Snclnly Ehd [2015] 1|) MLJ I31 [82] Therelore, we msagree wnh me AppeHanHhaHhe Vsamsd HCJ had erred m ms findings that the appoummem av PW3 as the AppeHan|’s oounse\ m Suit195 was nun and void sinoeme 05144 ordenm not exvsl at me wne (he Cansenl Judgment was entered mm «ms nu parly wouvd have been aware or me declar n granted under me 05 144 order. We «mm: nu mam m «ms nssue so sw .a.muan,..unmau-M -ma Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm a. nflmruflly am; nan-mm VII nF\uNG pm [51 on 22 s,2oi7, an order was eotained to slay the execullon oflhe consent Judgment pending the dlspasal olthis acllan [1] on 18.92019, after a lull trial. the teamed HCJ dismissed the Appellant's claim with oosrs. Dissatisfied. the Appellant med this appeal agains| the declslun ot the learned HCJ, Factual Background [3] The Appellant was a pupllo company listed in aurse Malaysia at the rnatenal time. The 1" Respondent was appointed the Appellants executive director on 5.12 2D14arld suoseguently oeeanre lheAppellant's managing director on 14 7.2015. The 2''“ Respondent was appointed as the Appellants executive director on is 12.2014. The 3'" Respondent was one ol the Appellanfs oirectors up unol an 3,2nl7. The 3-“ Respondent was also the direclnr and shareholder at the 4" Respondent. The 4" Respondent was the Appellants predator, the plalnllfl tn Sull 195 ano the beneficlary of the consent Judgment. The 3-“ Pally was the Appellants sxecullva director lrorn t B.201A until 29.32019 [9] on 5.1 2016, through a olreular resolutron, the Appellants board or alrectors resolved that its directors be authorised to source tor and pmcule loans to the extent at RM2,5 rnlllion since the Appellant needed suhslantial tunds to carry out eenein proposed oorporate exercises. The Appellants financial oolrgatton then included disbursements, protess onal eoneullatlon tees and tollow—up works mrlceming the carrying out ol due diligenoe oonoerning 23 vendors from the People's Republic or chrna ("PR The Appellants directors signed this resolution, including Data‘ 4 SW a§xEWL1unmDHMn72IAA -use s.n.i ...nt.r will he used m mm lite ollmrrallly snn; dun-vlnrrt vn .nt.ne Wml Third Issu Whlmor The Appellant Had Sucnusfully Pmmn That The consent Judgment Wu ohtai Id Through Fraud [as] The Appeliant, in their reply, submitted that the teamed HCJ tailed to take into consideration the ioilowing relevant evidence adduced during the inst. [341 Adeerding to the Appellant, on 29 05.2017, the 1" and 2"“ Respondents attended the board at dire::lors' meeting, which hsgan at 1D.fl(] a.in. Only the 1st and 2nd Respondents attended the meeting, in the midst or the meeting at 11.00 e m., the 1‘ and 2"“ Respondents were interrupted by the once clerk me intermed them that the cause papers tor suit 195 were served on the Appeuaiit This meeting was held in the Appetiants since. The 1-‘ Respondent then confirmed that suit 195 was discussed during the meeting there was ne evidence to show that the 1-‘ Respondent or the 2nd Respondent had made any attamps to contact Datuk Karen to iniorm her er SLHI 195 and had instead Named the dime oierx tor not iniorrning her. Despite the 1" and 2“ Respondents knowing that tneirtenure as dirsmurs was coming to an end, they eaiied idra board ei directors’ meelmg and appointed a eoiicitdr to record the consent Judgment. on the same day, at around 5.00 p m . the 1" Respondent met with PW3lmm Meaara. wei Li Tell it. cheong tortne firsi time, where Pwa was given the uause papers ipr suit 195. Payment by the Appeuant tn the 23 Eanefiuary companies ended up in the 3'" Respondents personai coflers. [us] All at the above has been Oansidsred by the teamed HCJ. as can be seen oeiow: 3] sin a§xEWL1unmD\1!4n71IAA -nae s.ii.i ...n.i M“ be ta... m mm we niimnaflly MVM5 dun-rtnnt via AFVLING WM! "/13211:»: to be conosaemniab/scmly. lhe circumstance: mvmgr/so to me Consent ./udgnieni wauid raise concem to an Oldmflvy man an my sites! ms lac! ms! me new resolulfon 10 have Ihe Consenl Judgment enima was msssdlusl my day bsfura me 1-‘ and 2-4 Delendarils wars removed as uimcms, ms lac! that me instructions Iegardrng ms cm-issnv ./uaizmenr were given to me sauaiors on in: my avian/nu were me 1‘ and 2" osiendams wars removed and the Inc! the! me Cmlwlit Judgment was entemd ma ruiiowig mommy of sum ol my 2017. /uiiowmciassiy by me 1" and 2'' Dksclmslsmoval as dlreclarx ism that molrimg‘ all nu ma ri-vow auomming um/:1 nmt not-nous 113:1 Suspicious though in. clmumsllncas my appear to no. It nu In be upon ti/Idnicl um um izw, um ctsn In docldsd by in: Dunn.’ (cmphnll addnd) [as] We do not 539 any reasnn In dspartlmm me findings ullhe lsamed HCJ in our view‘ me Appenanuaiied to snow anyappesiabie error on the Dan ofthe ieamen HCJ. we found no men! in unis issue ‘rm Law 0!! Applllatn iimmmion [37] II is Inls Ihatwhsri a matter comes up on anneal, an appellate noun is required In delennine wnemer me inai court had arrived a| as decision or findings correctly based on me reievam law and wamisnea evidence It is aiso Inte that an appenaie oourl will not generauy intervene with me decision ola man eoun unless ms trial oourl is snewn to be piamiy wrong in anmng at us aeoisian. A piaimy wrong as decision vflhe inai court is arrived at without iud al sppreczaiion onne n happsns wnsn me :2 SN asu?WL1unmuHMn71IAA ‘Nata Sum ...ns.. win he used M mm Die minmu-y MW; dun-mm VI] .nune pm fl evmence (see UEM Gwup and v. Genisys Imnqraud Enginnn Pu Ltd 3. Arm [2010] 9 CLJ 735: [2010] MLJU 2225. Chow vee wnn a. Anar v. cvmo An Put [1973] 1 LNS 32. watt or Thomas v. Thomla [1:47] AC 434, Gnu Vook cum 5 Arm v. Lu Inn Chill 5. Or: [2004] 4 CLJ me; [2005] 2 MLJ 1, and N9 Hoa Kul G-Anor v. Wundy Tan Lea Pang. Ad ralor of The Eslales 04 ran Ewe Kw-ng, Dnceand 5 Or: [2010] 10 CLJ 112020] NILJU Me 2o1n]12 MLJ :7; Conclusion [:31 In conduslon‘ aftev heanng me subrmsswons by aH pames and aflev careqm perms! ov me appeax records, we have come to a unammous decusxan that (have m rm mm to «ms appeal We see he appealame error on the pan or the learned HC.J‘s aemsmn Tnerefnre‘ the Appeuanrs appeax m me presem case ws dwsmlssed Mm cuss u1RM2D,UOD on in each Respanaem sumecno paymenlalallccatc Conn Is heveby amrmed Dated’)° Dlsember 2023 he decnsnon puns Hwgh 32 -mp Sum M... M“ be used m M, me nugvuuly mm; nnmmnnl VII mum wrw sw aSu?WL1unmDHMp72IAA sollclnm Far Thu Agmlllut: Am D: Siwa dan Jashui Lawson Cawla Teluan Badlpslsr Ponnudurax De suva D3441, Snlsns Dulamas No, ‘L JV! Dutamas1 saaao Kuala Lumpur Sollcltor For 1" Rngondcnt: Dam‘ Knh Mu: Tee (Mewakih Dvi Sendin) Sollcllav For 2"‘ Rugondonz: Yeap Km: Hock Teluan Kali &Assocvatss Suits 15 D7. W\sma Zelan Ja¥an Taswk Permawsuri 2 Bandar Tun Rezak seooo Kuala Lumpur sollclmu For 3" R Igond Alma Fllza EInlIAbd Muhsxn Tetuan Ramlw Vusufl & Cu. 020475, Datarsn 3 Two Square .|a\an 19/1 46300 Petaling Jaya Se\angor sell-: r For 4"‘ gondem Suxanne Aracklaraj Taman AMVH Rajasurya Unit 1305‘ Amcarp Trade Centre 15 Persiaran Baral 45050 Pehlmg Jays Selangur 10 sw asu?WL1unmuHMp72IAA -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm En cnlng slew @ YH cnlng slew ("Date' En Respandenl dld nol sign lnis resoluliun. and me an‘ Pally The aw [101 on 14.1.2015. lne Appellant slgned a loan agreement men the 4"- Respsndenl ("1' Lulu Aglnmlnl") Tnnmgn lnls agreement. me am Reapandenl agreed la lssue an RM2.5 nnlllan laan la me Appellanl. The lean was already disbursed la lne Appellanl by way or a cheque (111 on 19.1.2016, lne Appellanrs board at dlreslms, l.e ‘ me 1'‘, 2"“ and 3"’ Respondents, me am Pally and Dam‘ En, had a mealing la discuss seurclng funds or appmxlmalely RM155 million to meel ils llnanaal aallganans and lnlsnded business exlension plans, which lncludes agency agreenlenls mm several compirlles from me PRC. The business exlenslon plans were avbmved. To max ellael, ll was also resolved lnal lne Appellanl was aulnonsed le enter into anelner lnan agreamenl wiln me 4* Respondent lar RM155 mlHlon ln lne same meellrlgl me 1*‘ Respondent‘ as me managlng dlrector lnen, was eulnorised to exeaule lne agency and clher ineiaenul agreernenls on benall el me Appellanl la lnalellecl. [121 on me same day, lne Apaellanl damned lne secarld loan (mm lne 4ln Respandenl anmunung la RM15 5 nnlllen and formally documented ln a loan agrsemerll ("Z"“ Loan Algmemnnl") It was scaled ln lne agreelnenl that one or me main purposes ol sesunng me loan was lo pay for me casn deposlls lo lne 22 PRC eernpanles la enler lnla agency agreements vlnln menu. [13] on 3.2.2015, lne Appellanl enlered 2: exsluswe agency agreements wlln me 23 PRC oompanles. rnese agency agreelnenls oanler exdusive nghls la me Appellanl lo manual and plumole me s an .s.muan,..anllm-ea wane s.n.l ...ns.. M“ as HSQA m mm ea nllmruflly MW; dun-mm vn .nnna we produds and services of me 2: PRO oprnpania VI Miflaysia and singapcie. The terms or all the agency agreernems are inaienauy the same. [14] Under these agency agreements‘ the Appenanl was required \0 DEV RM3 05 nimcn as agency iees. nie Appeuani was also obhged to pay inmai aepcaiis amouming to RM1159 milhun The iniiian cepcsns and ins baianca onne agenpyvees were lo ce paic ic 23 ccinpaniea inecrpcraiaa in Malaysia by me respective PRC companies (--2: no Enmllclary Comnlnlca"). Both the infllal deposits and the balanoa Mlhe agency lees were in be paia within seven days er me execunpn or me agency agreanienis. [151 On 3.2.2016, Ine Appcllani sucsessmny paid me RM11 59 IYHIHOVI iniiiai deposits la me 23 PRO Eendflciary companies. However, the Appellant was unable xo pay me bciance 01 me agency iees. totalling apprnxirnaiely RM3 04 biuiun. m1 on 10.2.2016, due in nnevaiiine o1(heAppeHantIo pay me baiance afthe agency fees‘ meAppeIlanI and me 23 PRO ccnipanies entered Inlo seldsmenl agieemenis in wnicn ine Appeflanl agreed lo aim and issue ordinary shares ovRMo.4a eacn in me 23 we companies. [171 Inc Appellant also snlarsd mlo a seiuemeni agrsamentwith me an Respondent on ma same day. In unis sanienieni agreement. me Appeucni acknawbdged its Indebtedness 10 the 4"’ Respondent‘ which was agreed up as settled by allvlfing snares in me Appellam company cc me 4'” Responaeni. 5 sin asu?WL1cnn.nHMn71IAA -nae Sum nu-nhnv M“ be used a mm is. mVmruH|y MW; dun-mm vn AFVLING WM! [131 However, ttiere was a condition Precedent to this settlement agreement in wriioti ttie approval otlne Appellants snarenolders must be obtained in an EGM tor tne lssuanee and allotment ol its snares to tire A” Respondent witnln Iwc niontns ol tne settlement agreement or witii sttoti exlertslnn ot time as may he agreed upon It is also stipulated in ttiis settlement agreement that tile 4' Respondent may terminate ttie agreement iltne oonditiori preoedent is not lulrtlled. The number ol snares Io be issued and allotted to tile 4'" Respondent was agreed at 45 million ordinary shares cf RMo.4u eacn, totalling Rma million. [19] on 23.9.2015, tne seoonties commission Malaysia tusc") issued a will against tile 3” Respondent. Tnewrit was originally issued as Kltala Lurnpur t-lion coon Civil suit No: WA—22NCVC-603-09/2015 out was later redesignaled as Clvll Sult Na: WA-2ZNCC»335»D9/2016 Sui! 315']. [201 in suit :35, tiie so claimed tiiat tile 3" Respondent nad breached oenain pmvlslnrls oltrie capital Mamet and services Act 2007 ("CMSA 2on7") in whtsii tile 3"’ Respondent was alleged to naire oreated an elaborate seneme through trio 4'" Defendant to detraud the Appellant to cause wrongiul loss nie so also claimed tnat out at the RMl1.59 million paid by tile Appellant to tile 23 PRC companies, RMlt 54 million nad eventually ended up in the 3'“ Respondents eotters. Tire sc suwesslully claimed against me 3'" Respondent selore tne Hign coun ‘rile decistorl was aflirmed on awsal to tire coun otttpoeal, and tne 3"’ Respondent tailed to optain leave to appeal to the Federal court. :21: on 21.10.2016. Data‘ Eii lodged a police repon against tile 3"’ Respondent and Dam clement Tat wai Loon t--nato clement 1 , ttie 3'“ Respondents husband Dato clement Tai was also the Appellants r SlN a§xEWLlunrnDlll4n77IAA -roe s.ii.i lldlvlhll wlll he used M mm is. nllflliullly Mlitls dun-vlnirt vta aFlLING Wflxl oorpprete adviser. The allegation in the polioe repon was similar to the claims made by the so in suit 335. [22] on 30.3 2ol7. an Annual General Meeting (“AGM") was held, and a position was taken that Data‘ should cease to be Dale Sr! D! Chlew Han Chlng‘s atiemate director due to the letters retirement aflsr the said meeting. Data‘ Eii etiallenged the position through an original summons wed in the Kttala Lurnpur High coun through Orlglrlallrlg summons No: wA.2tNcc-144-at/2ot7 ("es 144'‘). [231 on 23.4 2017, the av Pally gave nmice according ha seetien alottal at the Companies Act zota (“CA ZMB") reauisitionirig end EGM te be held on an 5.2017 at 11 a m. The proposed agenda tor the EGM included the removal or the 1- and 2"“ Respondents as the Appellant's directors mediate etieet wil [24] On 22 5.2ut7at around to la p.ni , a notice ottne Appellants board of directors‘ meeting was issued through email pyone Nicholas Tan. who was desoritsed as the Appellants executive director The meeting was scheduled to Lake place an 29.5 2017 at to a.m. [25] on 25 5.2017, the 4" Respondent edmmenoed suit 195 against the Appellant. in this suit. the 4*” Respondent claimed the repayment at the money whim was lent to the Appellant through the 1-‘ and 2"-4 Loan Agreements with interests due to the nun—l‘u|fi|ment nf the oon ris precedent in the settlement agreement resulting in the settlement agreement being duly tenrninated by the 4'" Respondent. on the same day, the am Respondent also applied tor a Mareva lniunotion to restrain the Appellant trpm dealing with its assets up to RM1B million. a sin a§xEWL1uflmDl1l4n72IAA -use s.ii.i Ilnlvlhll will he used is mm Die nllnlrullly MIN; dun-vlnril vta nFlLING wnxl [zul on 29.5.2017, only the 1" and 2''’ Respondents had attended the board meeting. The 3'“ Party had opieered and refused to attend the meeting since the EGM to remove the 1" and 2"’ Respondents lronr directorship was already scheduled for the next day. [271 It was resolved during the poard meeting that the Appellant was to appoint Messrs wei Ll Tan rt. Ctteong to act as its advocates and solicitors to negotiate with Messrs Tan Norizen &Ass0cl'aIas to enter a consent iudgment with the Al" Respondent regarding the claim and the Mareva Injunction granted against the Appellant. It was also resolved that the 1" Respondent be authorised as the managing director to sign all mandates. instructions‘ and relevant dnmtrlenls. tzal sirnrenieet singn art aatdev singn ("PW3"), one at me panneis in Messrs wei LI Tan & cneorig, was instructed to attend the nearing at the 4"‘ Respnndenrs application lar Mamva |n]unc|i0rI which was scheduled an me next day, i 2 ml 30 5 2017 Awarranl In RC1 was executed, and he wa structed to record e consent iudgment witn trie 4"‘ oetendanr on behall er the Appellant [29] on the morning at 30.5.2017. the parties entered and renamed the Consent Judgment for suit 195 through their respective setiottnrs [30] The EGM convened as scheduled on the same day at around 11 am. The resolution to remove the 1" and 2‘ Respondents was passed, as a result, they were removed trom being the Appellants directors. [31] on 19.6 2ol7, the Appellant med a tresh suit to set aside the consent Judgment through suit 232, which was heard betore the learned HCJ below 9 SW ssreimtienmeiiirerzrmt -nee s.ii.i ...ie.i will he used e varw ee nllnlriallly Mlhls dun-vlnril via AHLING Wflxl [:21 on 25 5.2017, Dalo‘ EH was suwesslul in riis application in us MA (“tho as 44 Ordnr"). ii waa aideied, among ot|1ers,lhat: 13) SMEYLI uekiemi banawa spa-spa mssyuslal komvnnyl Lsmbsga Firlgarulv Dalsmiari dun ssmuu I850/USHEKD/us} yang kunormyfl ieian dl/ll/uskufl oian Lembega Pangansh uaiandan same we snare nyal-I aiaii ssbi/iklvyil den sama ads di maiyuaral fizikal ztall ms/s/ilrmsalual pekelilmg aiaii sebsllkriye, darlpsda 303 2917 den seiamsnya epawa peiiyeiieen Plairilrl sebayar aadiang peligismh Delenduri nvluh dfkemalrkan sania ada secara kaneizimir slsu sebellknysi adeian iidiik an an zaaial “ [:3] An appeai was mad againsi me decision in us 144 but was siinsequenuy miidrawn. [341 on 13.9.2019, anei a mu man, the iaamaa HCJ dismissed me Appellanfs aiaini in siiii 232 wim oasis. Dissafisfied, ine Appeiiani med iiiis agpeai againsi me dec IOVI or lhe ieained HCJ, which was heard before us. [35] Before our decision is delivered, ms Appeliaiii had. by way ola ieuier da\ed A 9 2023, iiiionnea niis OOHI1 that ii is eonnning iia prayers io: a. sei aside the decision omie High coiin on 13.9.2019 h. set aside me canseni Jiidgiiieni and c for costs to be paid by me Respundenis lo ine Appeuani. id SIN :§xEWL1oflmD\1!4n71lAA -use s.ii.i Illflhlv M“ as in... is mm we siiiimiiiy MVM5 dnunvinnl wa nF\uNG WM!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-25-10-03/2023

PEMOHON SHAMIR IZAK SINNAPPAN BIN ABDULLAH RESPONDEN 1. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (MAIS) 2. ) MAHKAMAH RAYUAN SYARIAH DI SHAH ALAM 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

an application filed by the applicant seeking leave of this court to commence an application for judicial review under Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”)

21/12/2023

YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=13255753-6246-4b62-a42f-83f5be419a09&Inline=true

1 BA-25-10-03/2023 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-10-03/2023 Dalam perkara keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah bertarikh 08.12.2022 di Shah Alam melalui Permohonan No.: 10000-043-0120-2019; Dan Dalam perkara keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah di Shah Alam bertarikh 07.10.2019 dalam Saman No.: 10400- 043-0597-2014; Dan Dalam perkara Artikel-Artikel 5, 8, 10 dan 11, Perlembagaan Persekutuan; Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 25(2) dan/atau Jadual, Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah. ANTARA SHAMIR IZAK SINNAPPAN BIN ABDULLAH (No. K/P: 961020-10-5893) …PEMOHON 21/12/2023 14:43:14 BA-25-10-03/2023 Kand. 20 S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BA-25-10-03/2023 DAN 1. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (MAIS) 2. MAHKAMAH RAYUAN SYARIAH DI SHAH ALAM 3. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGMENT [Pertaining to an application pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(1) Rules of Court 2012] Introduction [1] This is an application filed by the applicant, Shamir Izak Sinnappan bin Abdullah on 08.03.2023 seeking leave of this court to commence an application for judicial review under Order 53 Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). Factual Background [2] The facts of this application for judicial review is garnered from the submissions and affidavits filed. The applicant was born on 20.10.1969, identified as a Christian from birth and was raised in a household with both Christian and Hindu influences as his parents were Christian and Hindu. The applicant converted to Islam on 25.02.1993 for the purpose of marrying one Aminah Bt Abdul Salam (“Aminah”). The said marriage was registered on 14.04.1995. S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 BA-25-10-03/2023 [3] According to the applicant, he underwent the conversion solely for the purpose of marrying Aminah. To achieve this, he visited the PERKIM office on Jalan Ipoh and adhered to the guidance provided by the attending officer. [4] The applicant maintains that after the conversion the applicant maintained his adherence to Christianity and did not adopt or engage in the practices of Islam. This include such practises such as daily prayers to Jesus Christ, church attendance every Sunday and the annual Christmas and Good Friday celebrations. [5] The applicant and Aminah had a daughter named Erica A Melyn Binti Shamir Izak (“Erica”). The applicant and Aminah divorced in or approximately June 2001, attributed to misunderstandings. Following the separation, Erica was placed in the custody of Aminah. [6] According to the applicant, as he had never embraced or practiced Islam and underwent conversion solely for marriage, he opted to renounce his affiliation with Islam. The applicant initiated legal proceedings by filing an application in the Shah Alam Syariah High Court ("Syariah HC") through Summons No. 10400-043-0597-2014, invoking section 61(3)(b)(x) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 ("Administration Enactment"). This application, referred to as "Summons 2014," sought a declaration that he no longer professes to the religion of Islam. [7] On 15.04.2015, the first respondent submitted an application seeking an order for the applicant to undergo “proses penasihatan akidah dan runding cara akidah” (“Counselling”) by the Unit S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 BA-25-10-03/2023 Penasihatan Akidah in the Jabatan Mufti Selangor. The proposed counseling sessions were to be conducted at least twice a month for a minimum period of 6 months, as per sections 244 and 245 of the Syariah Court Civil Procedure (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 (“2003 Enactment”). [8] The application was granted by the Syariah HC, leading to the postponement of the Summon 2014 hearing. Between 2015 and 2016, the applicant participated in 12 counseling sessions (referred to as the “Sessions”). Despite completing the Sessions, the applicant consistently affirmed his reluctance to embrace or declare adherence to Islam. [9] In the trial of Summon 2014, the applicant adduced evidence including testimony from witnesses that he never professed Islam. At all material times, he practised and professed Christianity. [10] On 7.10.2019, the Syariah HC rejected Summon 2014 and directed the applicant to attend “kelas bimbingan akidah” (the “Syariah HC Decision”). The Syariah HC determined that it was unnecessary to ascertain whether the applicant practiced or professed Islam since his initial conversion into Islam was deemed valid. [11] Following the Syariah HC Decision, the applicant’s solicitors discharged themselves. The applicant then represented himself. He filed a Notice of Appeal in the second respondent on 17.10.2019 within the time period prescribed under subsection 139(4) of the 2003 Enactment. The appeal was registered as Application No.: 10000-077-0021 Tahun 2021 (the “Appeal”). S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 BA-25-10-03/2023 [12] On 18.02.2020, the applicant appointed a solicitor to represent him in the Appeal. The applicant served the Notice of Appeal to the first respondent on 24.10.2019. Subsequently, on 20.02.2020, the first respondent filed an application seeking to dismiss the Appeal. The grounds for dismissal were that the applicant had served the Notice of Appeal on the first respondent beyond the time frame specified in subsection 139(8) of the 2003 Enactment. [13] The Notice of Appeal was to be served by 21.10.2019, but was instead served three days later on 24.10.2019. Subsequently, on 5.10.2020, the applicant’s solicitor withdrew from the case, necessitating the applicant to represent himself once again. [14] On 18.02.2021, the applicant submitted a request to prolong the period for serving the Notice of Appeal. In his explanation, the applicant clarified that during that particular period, he was without legal representation, and the first respondent did not suffer any detriment as a result. [15] The second respondent on 8.12.2022, rejected the applicant’s application and granted the first respondent’s request. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed. Reliefs Sought [16] The applicant is essentially seeking to challenge the second respondent’s decision which dismissed the Appeal and dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time. In this judicial review, the main reliefs sought by the applicant are, among others, are reproduced below: S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 BA-25-10-03/2023 “1. Bahawa kebenaran diberikan kepada Pemohon menurut Aturan 53 Kaedah 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk memohon semakan kehakiman untuk: 1.1. Deklarasi-deklarasi bahawa: a. Responden Ke-2 telah membuat keputusan bertarikh 08.12.2022 dalam Permohonan No. 10000-043-0120-2019 (“Keputusan Responden Ke-2”) untuk tujuan kolateral, iatu: i. Membuatkanya tidak perlu (‘rendering it unnecessary’) bagi Responden Ke- 2 untuk menentukan rayuan Pemohon di Responden Ke-2 dalam Permohonan No. 10000-043-0120- 2019 (“Rayuan” tersebut) tersebut; dan ii. Dengan itu, menafikan Pemohon haknya untuk kebebasan beragama di bawah Perkara 11(1), Perlembagaan Persekutuan (“PP”). b. Responden Ke-2 telah secara efek melalui Keputusan Responden Ke-2 membuat keputusan bahawa Pemohon patut dinafikan haknya untuk menganuti dan mengamalkan agama pilihannya di bawah Perkara 11(1), PP. 1.2. Satu arahan bersifat certiorari untuk membatalkan Keputusan Responden Ke-2; S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 BA-25-10-03/2023 1.3. Berbangkit daripada itu, suatu deklarasi bahawa daripada 08.12.2022, Pemohon bukan seorang yang menganut agama Islam; 1.4. Secara alternatif: a. Satu deklarasi bahawa Responden Ke-2 telah melanggar hak Pemohon untuk didengar berkenaan Rayuan tersebut, dan dengan itu melanggar Perkara 5(1) dan 8(1), PP; b. Satu arahan bersifat certiorari untuk membatalkan Keputusan Responden Ke-2; c. Satu arahan bersifat mandamus untuk memaksa Responden Ke-2 untuk mendengar dan memutuskan Rayuan tersebut atas merit; dan/atau 1.5. Relif sedemikian yang selanjutnya atau lain-lain yang dianggap adil menurut kuasa Mahkamah di bawah Perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964;” Objection by the Attorney General [17] The Honorable Attorney General objected to this application for leave on the ground that the second respondent’s decision is not amenable to judicial review by virtue of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. [18] Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution reads: “121. (1A) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.” S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BA-25-10-03/2023 [19] It was submitted by learned Senior Federal Counsel that while the civil High Courts possess the jurisdiction to perform judicial review, they are dispossessed of this jurisdiction in respect of matters which are within the purview of the Syariah Courts. [20] Learned Senior Federal Counsel argued that the civil High Courts are not authorized to intervene in matters falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. This principle has been consistently affirmed through a series of precedents. [See: Dalip Kaur v. Pegawai Polis Daerah, Balai Polis Daerah, Bukit Mertajam & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 1; Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v. Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992] 2 MLJ 793; Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v. Ketua Pengarah Penjara, Malaysia & Anor [1999] 2 MLJ 241] [21] As a result, decisions made by the Syariah courts are within their exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be subject to judicial review by the civil High Courts. Based on this premise, the Honorable Attorney General argued that the second respondent’s decision is not open to judicial review, and therefore, this application for leave should be denied. [22] It was further submitted that the Syariah HC is expressly vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine matters of conversion out of Islam. This is provided for in Section 61(3)(b)(x) of Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 (“2003 Enactment”), which is reproduced below: “61.(3)(b) dalam bidang kuasa malnya, mendengar dan memutuskan semua tindakan dan prosiding jika semua pihak S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 BA-25-10-03/2023 dalam tindakan atau prosiding itu adalah orang Islam dan tindakan atau prosiding itu adalah berhubungan dengan— (i) … … (x) pengisytiharan bahawa seseorang itu bukan lagi orang Islam; …” [23] It was further submitted by learned Senior Federal Counsel that the courts have upheld the stand that the matter of conversion into and out of Islam is within the Syariah court’s exclusive jurisdiction. [See: Soon Singh a/l Bikar Singh v. Pertubuhan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (PERKIM) Kedah & Anor [1999] 1 MLJ 489; Lina Joy lwn Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan dan lain-lain [2007] 4 MLJ 585; Hj Raimi bin Abdullah v. Siti Hasnah Vangarama bt Abdullah and another appeal [2014] 3 MLJ 757; Rosliza bt Ibrahim v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 2 MLJ 181] Principles relating to leave for Judicial Review [24] The guiding principles in granting leave for judicial review is that the applicant must show prima facie that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. In this regard, the case of WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2012] 4 CLJ 478 stated as follows: S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 BA-25-10-03/2023 “[12] For purposes of its application, the appellant had alluded to the statutory route of O.53 of the Rules. Under this order two stages are anticipated, with the leave stage being the first, to be followed closely by the substantive hearing after successfully obtaining leave at the High Court. At the leave stage on a quick perusal of the material available, if the court thinks that subsequently at the substantive hearing stage an arguable case may be disclosed, and the relief sought may be granted, leave should be granted (IRC v. National Federation of Self- Employed and Small Business Ltd [1982] AC 617). In Malaysia, the Federal Court in Mohd Nordin Johan v. The Attorney-General, Malaysia [1983] 1 CLJ 130; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 271 when allowing the appeal, opined that ‘the point taken was not frivolous to merit refusal of leave in limine and justified argument on a substantive motion for certiorari’. Without the need to go into depth of the abundant authorities, suffice if we stage that leave may be granted if the leave application is not thought of as frivolous, and if leave is granted, an arguable case in favour of granting the relief sought at the substantive hearing may be the resultant outcome. A rider must be attached to the application though ie, unless the matter for judicial review is amenable to judicial review absolutely no success may be envisaged.” [Emphasis added] [25] More recently, pertaining to the test in granting leave in application for judicial review, the court in the case of Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abdul Razak v Attorney General & Ors [2020] 3 MLJ 114, stated: S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 BA-25-10-03/2023 “[33] A court hearing a judicial review application must determine whether ‘prima facie there is a genuine case for review’. It is accepted that the threshold requirement is low, for leave will only be refused where an application is: (a) frivolous and vexatious or hopeless; (b) made by busybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative errors; (c) misconceived; (d) unarguable or groundless; (e) where there is a more appropriate alternative procedure; or (f) where an application for judicial review is an inappropriate procedure.” [26] The Supreme Court in Association of Bank Officers, Peninsular Malaysia v. Malayan Commercial Banks Association [1990] 1 CLJ Rep 33 (SC) stated as follows on the requirement for the application to challenge an Industrial Court Award to show, prima facie, that it is not frivolous or vexatious and there is substance in the proposed challenge: “At the outset of the hearing of the appeal before us, we indicated to the parties that we would hear submissions on the issue of leave only… The guiding principles ought to be that the applicants must show prima facie that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. On the evidence in this case we found that the appellants had prima facie an arguable case for the granting of the relief they were seeking. Their application was not frivolous or vexatious. There were grounds to consider the allegations made by the appellants and S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 BA-25-10-03/2023 which could only be properly heard and determined on the substantive application for an order of certiorari after leave has been granted.” [Emphasis added] [27] Founded on these principles enunciated in the authorities cited above, this court will consider the application for leave. Decision [28] The test in order to grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings is that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application for judicial review. [29] In Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Lembaga Lebuhraya & Anor [1998] 1 MLJ 224 His Lordship Visu Sinnadurai J at page 225 held as follows: “... The court, in exercising its discretion that an application for leave be granted must be convinced by the applicants that prima facie the application is genuine and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. The test’s threshold is very low; a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion, an arguable case must be shown, not a prima facie case. Additionally, an application must fail if it is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, made by busybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative errors, groundless, where there are more appropriate alternative S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 BA-25-10-03/2023 remedies, and where the application for judicial remedies is inappropriate.” [Emphasis added] [30] What this entails is this court is required at this stage to make a perusal of the material to determine that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. [31] In this application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings, the facts reveal that the applicant is seeking to challenge the decision of the second respondent which dismissed the appeal and dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time. The events leading to the appeal at the Syariah HC is that the applicant, born a Christian had converted to Islam. Despite that, the applicant contends that he had continued to practise Christianity. [32] The applicant applied to the Syariah HC to have his renunciation formalised. The Syariah HC ordered the applicant to attend counselling sessions, which the applicant did. Despite this, the applicant maintained he still intended to renounce the religion of Islam. [33] Without delving into an extensive analysis of numerous authorities, it is sufficient to state that leave may be granted if the leave application is not deemed frivolous or vexatious. Furthermore, if leave is indeed granted, a plausible case supporting the relief S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 BA-25-10-03/2023 sought during the substantive hearing could be the eventual outcome. [34] In simpler terms, summarizing what has been expressed in cases, the High Court is not supposed to assess the substance of the case during the leave stage. Its function is solely to determine whether the leave application is without merit. For instance, if the applicant lacks a genuine interest, the application is untimely, or it targets an entity protected from legal proceedings, the civil High Court would be justified in rejecting leave at the outset. [35] In this application for leave, this court is mindful that the issue at hand concerns the renunciation of the applicant’s conversion to Islam. This involves the applicant’s right under the Federal Constitution. In this regard, Article 11 of the Federal Constitution reads: “Freedom of religion 11. (1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. (2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own. (3) Every religious group has the right— (a) to manage its own religious affairs; (b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and (c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law. S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 BA-25-10-03/2023 (4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. (5) This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.” [36] The guiding principles in relation to a leave application to commence judicial review should be that applicants need to demonstrate initially that the application is not frivolous or vexatious, and there is some merit in the grounds supporting the application. As the issue before this court relates to the a right provided for in the Federal Constitution, this court is of the considered view it cannot be said to be frivolous or vexatious which would allow this court to refuse leave in limine. [37] As the facts of this application demonstrate a right under the Federal Constitution is in issue here, it is the considered view of this court there is some substance in the grounds relating to this application. A court handling a judicial review application needs to ascertain whether, on the surface, there is a legitimate basis for conducting a review. This application for leave to commence judicial review, is in the view of this court, not frivolous or vexatious. Conclusion [38] Bearing in mind the threshold for leave for judicial review is low, that is the guiding principles ought to be that the applicants must show S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 BA-25-10-03/2023 prima facie that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application, this court finds this application not to be frivolous or vexatious. This court further finds that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. [39] For the abovementioned reasons, this court grants leave for judicial review with no order as to cost. Date: 21 December 2023 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 BA-25-10-03/2023 Counsel: For The Applicant: Shenmuga A/L A. Kanesalingam, Kee Hui Yee Tetuan Kanesalingam & Co Advocates & Solicitors Unit 3-3, Level 3, Wisma Bandar, 18, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, 50100 Kuala Lumpur legal@kanesalingam.com +6 03 2698 9199 For the Respondent: FC Ahmad Hanir bin Hambaly @ Arwi, Imtiyaz Wizni Aufa binti Othman Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia Bahagian Guaman, No. 45, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya. +603 8872 2000 S/N U1clE0ZiYkukL4P1vkGaCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

W-02(NCvC)(A)-1323-07/2022

PERAYU 1. ) AIKBEE TIMBERS SDN. BHD. 2. ) SIT SENG & SONS REALTY SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN 1. ) YII SING CHIU 2. ) PEARL SURIA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Strata Management Act 2013- Strata Titles Act 1985 - Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966 - Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 Schedule H as prescribed in regulation 11- determination of and imposition of the different rates of maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund between apartment parcels and commercial parcels - determination of different rates of the maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund.

21/12/2023

Dato' Dr. Choo Kah SingKorumYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd GhazaliDato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=956bb891-2caa-4f29-980f-3b53c68dea0e&Inline=true

Page 1 of 38 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(NCVC)(A)-1323-07/2022 ANTARA 1. AIKBEE TIMBERS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 36911-K) 2. SIT SENG & SONS REALTY SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 52113-A) PERAYU-PERAYU DAN 1. YII SING CHIU (NO. K/P: 530318-13-5035) 2. PEARL SURIA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(NCVC)(A)-1389-07/2022 ANTARA PEARL SURIA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PERAYU DAN 1. YII SING CHIU (NO. K/P: 530318-13-5035) 2. AIKBEE TIMBERS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 36911-K) 3. SIT SENG & SONS REALTY SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 52113-A) RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 21/12/2023 16:56:37 W-02(NCvC)(A)-1323-07/2022 Kand. 37 S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 38 [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Di Kuala Lumpur Dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia Saman Pemula No. WA-24NCVC-2452-12/2020 Dalam perkara mengenai penetapan kadar caj penyenggaraan dan caruman kepada Kumpulan wang penjelas yang berbeza bagi petak-petak pengsapuri dan petak-petak perdagangan iaitu kompleks runcit dan tempat letak kereta (petak lantai keseluruhan); Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Mesyuarat Agung Pertama PEARL SURIA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION yang telah diadakan pada 26.1.2019 dan Mesyuarat Agung Kedua PEAR SURIA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION yang diadakan pada 8.8.2020; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai peruntukan- perutukan relevan Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 (Akta 318); Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai peruntukan- peruntukan Akta Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1966 dan undang-undang subsidiarinya; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen- Seksyen 8, 9, 12, 52, 59, 60, Jadual Pertama dan peruntukan peruntukan relevan Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 (Akta 757) Dan Dalam Perkara mengenai Aturan 7 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 38 Antara Yii Sing Chiu (No. K/P: 530318-13-5035) Pemohon Dan 1. Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 36911-K) 2. Sit Seng & Sons Realty Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 52113-A) 3. Pearl Suria Management Corporation Responden-Responden] ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````` CORAM: LEE SWEE SENG, JCA MOHD NAZLAN BIN MOHD GHAZALI, JCA CHOO KAH SING, JCA S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 38 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] There are two appeals before us, namely Appeal No. W- 02(NCVC)(A)-1323-07/2022 (“Appeal 1323”) and Appeal No. W02(NCVC)(A)-1389-07/2022 (“Appeal 1389”). [2] The respective appellants in both the appeals were the respondents in an Originating Summons filed by the 1st respondent in both the appeals via suit No. WA-24NCVC-2452-12/2020 (“the OS action”). In the OS action, two questions of law were posed before the High Court for determination. The two questions of law were as follows: “Whether on the true construction of the provisions of the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA”), the Strata Titles Act 1985 (“STA”), the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966, the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989, in particular, Schedule H as prescribed in regulation 11: (a) the determination of and imposition of the different rates of maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund between apartment parcels and commercial parcels by the 1st respondent as the developer of Pearl Suria is valid in law; and S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 38 (b) the determination of different rates of the maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund by the 3rd respondent as the management corporation of Pearl Suria is valid in law?” [3] On 23.6.2022, the learned High Court Judge answered both the questions of law (a) and (b) in the negative. Consequently, the learned High Court Judge granted an order to the effect that all parcel owners of residential and commercial parcels have to pay the same rates of charges for the payments of maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund in the development. Salient Facts The Parties [4] Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd (“the Developer”) was the 1st respondent in the OS action. The Developer is the owner and developer of an integrated development project known as PEARL SURIA – MENARA PEARL POINT 2 (“the development”). [5] The development comprises of three parts. The first part comprises of residential units known as “Pearl Suria Residence” (“the residential parcels”). The second part is a shopping mall known as “Pearl Suria Shopping Mall”, and the third part is a car park block (the mall and the car park block shall collectively be referred to as “the commercial parcels”; or respectively referred to as “the Mall” and “Car Park parcel”). The Mall is owned by the Developer, whereas, the residential parcels were sold to individual owners. S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 38 [6] Sit Seng & Sons Realty Sdn Bhd (“the CP owner”) was the 2nd respondent in the OS action and is the registered proprietor of the whole Car Park parcel. [7] Pearl Suria Management Corporation (“the MC”) was the 3rd respondent in the OS action, and is the management corporation of the development. [8] Yii Sing Chiu (“YSC”) was the applicant in the OS action. He is one of the registered proprietors of the residential parcels in the Pearl Suria Residence. The OS Action [9] Sometime in January 2019, YSC discovered that the owners of the residential parcels and the commercial parcels respectively were paying different chargeable rates for the maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund for the period between 21.4.2016 and 25.1.2019. The different chargeable rates are as below: Parcels The rate for maintenance charges (per share unit) The rate for sinking Fund (per share unit) Residential RM2.22 RM0.30 Commercial RM0.11 RM0.06 [10] The period between 21.4.2016 and 25.1.2019 was the period between the date of delivery of vacant possession (21.4.2016) and the 1st S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 38 AGM meeting which was convened on 26.1.2019. During this period, the Developer was the body tasked to manage, maintain and upkeep the development (“the preliminary management period”). The MC was formed on 17.8.2017. The MC officially took over the management from the Developer on 26.2.2019, a month after the 1st AGM was convened. [11] The MC decided to maintain the same rates of charges as previously fixed by the Developer for the period from 25.2.2019 to 31.3.2019. The MC decided to raise the rate for the maintenance charges for the residential parcels, but maintained the chargeable rate for the commercial parcels. The new rate for the maintenance charges was RM2.92 per share unit for the residential parcels effective from 1.4.2019. The new rate is shown as below: Parcels The rate for maintenance charges (per share unit) The rate for sinking Fund (per share unit) Residential RM2.92 RM0.30 Commercial RM0.11 RM0.06 [12] YSC was not satisfied with the different chargeable rates imposed on the residential parcels and commercial parcels by the Developer during the preliminary management period and subsequently by the MC. YSC then filed the OS action and posed the two questions of law before the High Court to determine. The High Court’s decision [13] The learned High Court Judge held that the different chargeable rates for the residential parcels and the commercial parcels for the S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 38 maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund imposed by the Developer and the MC at the different periods of time were illegal, null and void. Consequently, the learned High Court Judge held that the chargeable rates for the maintenance charges and the contribution to the sinking fund must be the same for all parcels. Hence the chargeable rate for maintenance charges was fixed at RM2.22 per share unit for all parcels, and the rate for the contribution of sinking fund was fixed at RM0.30 per share unit for all parcels. [14] The Developer and the CP owner, being the respective owners of the commercial parcels, were ordered to pay the MC back-charges for the relevant period until 31.3.2019 based on the standardized rates of RM2.22 per share unit for the maintenance charges and RM0.30 per share unit for the contribution to the sinking fund. [15] The High Court also ordered the MC to hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) within one month from the date of the order dated 23.6.2022 to determine the chargeable rates for the maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund for the residential parcels and commercial parcel and such rates must be the same for all parcels effective from 25.2.2019. The Appeals [16] The Developer and the CP owner were not satisfied with the decision of the High Court, and thereby jointly filed Appeal 1323. [17] Appeal 1323, amongst other things, is related to the first question of law vis-à-vis whether the Developer could impose different rates of S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 38 charges for residential parcels as opposed to the commercial parcels for the payments of the maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund during the preliminary management period. [18] The MC was not satisfied with the decision of the High Court too. The MC averred that under the law a management corporation is allowed to charge different rates for different types of parcels, such as residential parcels as opposed to commercial parcels, for maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund. The MC then filed Appeal 1389. [19] Appeal 1389 is related to the second question of law vis-à-vis whether the MC is entitled to under the law to fix different rates of charges for maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund for parcels which are different in nature or purpose? The Findings of this Court The first question of law – Determining the rates of charges during the preliminary management period [20] The applicable law is the Strata Management Act 2013 (“the SMA 2013”) which came into force on 1.6.2015 (PU(B) 237/2015 – for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya). Part V Strata Management After Existence of Management Corporation is the relevant part. [21] Another law which is relevant is the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (“the HDA 1966”), particularly S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 38 Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“the HDR 1989”). [22] The Sale and Purchase Agreement (and Deed of Mutual Covenant) that YSC entered into with the Developer was dated 12.9.2013 (“the SPA”). The contents of the SPA were based on the then Schedule H of the HDR 1989. Clause 18 of the SPA stated as follows: “(1) The Purchaser shall be liable for and shall pay the service charges for the maintenance and management of the common property and for the services provided by the Vendor prior to the establishment of a Joint management Body under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007. (2) From the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Parcel the Purchaser shall pay a fair and justifiable proportion of the costs and expenses for the maintenance and management of the common property and for the services provided. Such amount payable shall be determined according to the allocated share units assigned to the said Parcel by the Vendor’s licensed land surveyors. The amount determined shall be the amount sufficient for the actual maintenance and management of the common property. The Purchaser shall pay four (4) months’ advance in respect of the service charges and any payment thereafter shall be payable monthly in advance. (3) All service charges and any payment received by the Vendor under this clause is to be paid into a Building Maintenance Account established under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007. (4) Every written notice to the Purchaser requesting for the payment of service charges from the Vendor shall be supported by service charge statement issued by the Vendor. The service charge statement shall be in the form annexed in the Fifth Schedule and full particulars of any increase in the service charges shall be reflected in the subsequent service charge statement. S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 38 (5) …. (6) …. (7) ….” [23] The payment of sinking fund was dealt with in Clause 19 of the SPA which stated as follows: “(1) The Vendor shall, upon the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Parcel, open and maintain a separate sinking fund for the purposes of meeting the actual or expected liabilities in respect of the following matters: (a) the painting or repainting of any part of the common property; (b) the acquisition of any movable property for use in relation with the common property; or (c) the renewal or replacement of any fixture or fitting comprised in the common property. (2) The Purchaser shall, upon the date he takes vacant possession of the said Parcel, contribute to the sinking fund an amount equivalent to ten per centum (10%) of the service charges determined in accordance with subclause 18(2) and thereafter such contribution shall be payable monthly in advance. (3) All funds accumulated in the sinking fund opened and maintained under subclause (1) shall be held by the Vendor in trust for the Purchaser and the purchasers of the other parcels in the said housing development and immediately upon the establishment of a sinking fund under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, all such funds accumulated shall be transferred by the Vendor into the sinking fund established under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007. (4) ….” S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 38 [24] The SPA referred to the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (Act 663) as the governing law for the collection and payment of maintenance charges and contribution of sinking fund. [25] Act 663 was repealed by s. 153 of the SMA 2013 which took effect on 1.6.2015 (except for the State of Penang which took effect on 12.6.2015). Act 663 was no longer applicable when vacant possession was delivered to the purchasers on 21.4.2016. The law applicable was, and still is, the SMA 2013. [26] By way of comparison, Clauses 19(1) and (3) of the current Schedule H to the HDR 1989 (“the current Schedule H”) state as follows: “(1) From the date of the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Parcel, the Purchaser shall pay to the Developer the charges, and the contribution to the sinking fund for the maintenance and management of the building or land intended for subdivision into parcels and the common property in accordance with the Strata Management Act 2013. ….. (3) Every written notice from the Developer to the Purchaser requesting for the payment of charges shall be supported by a charge statement issued by the Developer in the form annexed in the Fifth Schedule and full particulars of any increase in the charges shall be reflected in the subsequent charge statement.” [27] The calculation of the charges (or the amount chargeable or the rate per proposed share unit) is found in the Fifth Schedule of the current Schedule H which is reproduced as below: S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 38 [28] The amount for the total expenses for maintenance and management of the building intended for subdivision into parcels, including the expenses for the maintenance of the common property, varies from time to time. Whereas, the total number of share units assigned by the Developer or the approved total share units by the Director of Lands and Mines is fixed. [29] On 13.4.2016, the Developer obtained from the Director of Lands and Mines of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur the Sijil Formula Unit Syer (SiFUS) approving the calculation or formulation of the total share units for the development. The SiFUS was obtained before the date of the delivery of vacant possession (on 21.4.2016). As such, the formula set out in the First Schedule [Section 8] of the SMA 2013 is not applicable in the instant case. [30] The Developer’s Mall is one (1) parcel, and the CP owner’s car park parcel is also one (1) parcel. Whereas, the total number of residential parcels is 403 parcels. However, in terms of the percentage of share units, the combined share units for the Developer and the CP owner stands at 67% of the total share units (see para [50] below for the total allocated share units for the respective parcels). S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 38 [31] This Court observes that insofar as the calculation for the service charges is concerned, the formula found in the Fifth Schedule of the SPA and the formula found in the Fifth Schedule of the current Schedule H (as shown in para [27] above) do not differ much. The formula in the Fifth Schedule to the SPA stated as below: [32] In order to derive a rate chargeable per share unit for the maintenance charges based on the formula provided in the Fifth Schedule of the SPA, the developer is required to work out the estimated monthly expenses and estimated annual expenses in order to derive the estimated amount for the total expenses. [33] The Fifth Schedule of the SPA provided a list of items to be taken into account for the calculation of the total estimated expenses per month and per year. The Form of Charge Statement in the Fifth Schedule of the SPA provided 26 items. [34] It is important to note that the 26 items stated in the Form of Charge Statement must be understood to include the expenses to maintain the common facilities and services provided for the residential parcels which exclusively serve the residents of the residential parcels. The common S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 15 of 38 facilities and services exclusively provided for the residential parcels are found in item 1 of the Second Schedule of the SPA (“the exclusive common facilities”). The exclusive and general common facilities and services provided are as follows: “1. FACILITIES AND SERVICES WITHIN THE SERVICE APARTMENT BLOCK EXCLUSIVELY SERVING THE SERVICE APARTMENT 1.1 Swimming Pool And Wading Pool 1.2 BBQ Terrace 1.3 Gazebo 1.4 Children’s Playground 1.5 Multi Purpose Hall 1.6 Gym Room 1.7 Reading Room 1.8 Laundry Room 1.9 Changing Room 1.10 Sauna 1.11 Kindergarten 1.12 Surau 1.13 Landscape Garden (7th Floor) 1.14 Visitor Management System 1.15 CCTV At Lobby, Car park And Lift 1.16 Access card For Lift 1.17 Security Access At Entrance Lobby And car Park 1.18 Panic Button At Car Park 1.19 Roof Covering And Roof Framing 2. COMMON FACILITIES AND SERVICES SERVING ALL TYPES OF PARCELS 2.1 Internal Roads and Perimeter Roads 3. SERVICES The Vendor shall provide such services as it deems fit for the control, management, administration, upkeep and maintenance of the Facilities.” [35] Clause 18 of the current Schedule H states as follows: S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 16 of 38 “Common facilities and services 18(1) The Developer shall, at its own costs and expense, construct or cause to be constructed the common facilities, which shall form part of the common property, serving the housing development and provide services as specified in the Second Schedule. (2) The Developer shall bear all costs and expenses for the maintenance and management of the said facilities and the provision of the said services until such date when the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Parcel.” [36] In a similar vein, Clause 17 of the SPA stated as follows: “ Common Facilities and Services (1) The Vendor shall, at its own cost and expense, construct or cause to be constructed the common facilities serving the housing development and provide services including the collection of refuse, the cleaning of public drains and the cutting of grass as specified in the Second Schedule. (2) The Vendor shall bear all costs and expenses for the maintenance and management of the said facilities and services until such date when the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Parcel.” [37] Both the SPA and the current Schedule H state clearly that the expenses for the maintenance and management of the common facilities and services shall be the responsibility of the developer until such date when the purchaser takes vacant possession. [38] After the date of delivery of vacant possession, in this case after 21.4.2016, the charges for the expenses for the maintenance and management of the common facilities (which formed part of the common S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 17 of 38 property) shall be paid by the purchasers to the Developer in accordance with the SMA 2013. [39] The Developer and the CP owner both have a parcel each in the development. They did not, and still do not, enjoy the exclusive common facilities in item 1 of the Second Schedule of the SPA. The exclusive common facilities were, and still are, exclusively for the use and enjoyment of the residential parcels’ owners, including YSC, after vacant possession was delivered. [40] The estimated monthly expenses (or estimated annual expenses) encompassed all the expenses including the expenses in relation to the exclusive common facilities. If the Developer and the CP owner were required to share the estimated monthly expenses based on the total expenses which included the expenses for maintaining and managing the exclusive common facilities, then the Developer and the CP owner would be paying for the exclusive common facilities which they could not use or enjoy. Although the Developer and CP owner are allocated share units in the development, their rights in the development are distinct from the rights of the owners of the residential parcels. [41] The formula for the calculation of the chargeable rate for the maintenance charges in the Second Schedule of the SPA must be understood to apply to a group of common proprietors who have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits of the same common facilities and common property. Therefore, they share the same responsibilities to maintain these common facilities and common property. S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 18 of 38 [43] Section 2 of the SMA 2013 defines “common property”, which is relevant to the present case, as “in relation to a subdivided building or land, means so much of the lot (i) as is not comprised in any parcel, including any accessory parcel, or any provisional block as shown in a certified strata plan; and (ii) used or capable of being used or enjoyed by occupiers of two or more parcel.” [44] The Developer and CP owner are excluded from using and enjoying the exclusive common facilities or common property which are exclusively for the use of the owners of the residential parcels. Therefore, it is only the residential parcels’ owners who should be responsible to share the expenses or estimated expenses for the maintenance and management of the exclusive common facilities as this would represent the fair and justifiable proportion of the costs and expenses for the maintenance and management of the common property and services as provided in Clause 18(2) of the SPA. [45] With regard to the chargeable rates applicable to the Developer and the CP owner, the expenses or estimated expenses for the maintenance and management of the exclusive common facilities have to be excluded from the total expenses for the purpose of calculation of the applicable chargeable rates. In this way, the chargeable rates for the maintenance charges would be in fair and justifiable proportions for the owners of the residential parcels as well as to the commercial parcels’ owners. [46] At the High Court, the learned High Court Judge was of the view that the law did not differentiate the charges between residential parcels and commercial parcels. The current Schedule H, particularly the Fifth Schedule Form of Charge Statement (under Clause 19), provided a list of S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 19 of 38 items to be considered for their estimated expenses in order to derive an estimated monthly or annually expenses. The items in the list could not be changed without prior approval of the relevant authority. The learned High Court Judge held that reading ss. 46, 48 and 52 of the SMA 2013, particularly s. 52(2) of the SMA 2013, there could only be one rate of charges. [47] The counsel for YSC relied on the Court of Appeal decision of Muhamad Nazri Bin Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor [2019] 10 CLJ 547, CoA, to support his case. [48] Essentially, the ratio decidendi in Rajawali is concerned with how the share units are to be allocated in a development. The Court of Appeal explained at length the formula for the computation of allocated share units based on the First Schedule [Section 8] of the SMA 2013. The Court of Appeal held: “[24] Accordingly, the criteria in determining the allotment of share units is based on weight differentiation for share units as illustrated by the three weightage factors WF1, WF2 and WF3. In addition to the above, ss. 21 and 25 of the SMA 2013 requires the JMB to determine the maintenance charges “in proportion to the allocated share units of each parcel.” The word ‘proportion’ is defined as ‘to adjust in proper proportion to something else as to size, quantity, number etc.; to make proportionate’ (Oxford English Dictionary, vol. VIII). The words ‘in proportion’ was explained in Tan Eng Choon v. Tay Boon See [1980] 1 LNS 74; [1980] 2 MLJ 290, 2910 as “A thing is said to be in proportion to another when there is a comparative relationship or ratio between the two. The relationship is such that any increase or decrease in one will involve a relative adjustment of the other so as to maintain the existing harmony between them.” [25] In light of the fact that three weightage factors have been applied in the calculation of share units for car park parcels and which calculation is premised S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 20 of 38 on equitable considerations, it would appear that the JMB is only empowered to fix one rate which is applicable to all types of parcels. If that course is adopted, then the owners of different type of parcels will be paying maintenance charges in proportion to the allocated share units of their respective parcels because the rate per share unit is the same. We are therefore inclined to agree with the plaintiff’s argument that since the car park unit (whole floor parcel) is already enjoying a 40% discount by way of the calculation of its share units pursuant to the WF formula in the First Schedule, it will enjoy a further 42% discount given the lower rate of maintenance charges for the car park units. This additional discount would, in our view, run counter to the legislative framework which is intended to avoid inequitable, unfair and discriminatory practice in determining maintenance and maintenance charges rate. Therefore, the imposition of two different rates of maintenance charges for different types of parcels is incompatible with the meaning of “in proportion” in ss. 21 and 25 of the SMA 2013 since there is no comparative relation, ratio or harmony between the two different rates and the different allocated share units of each parcel. In describing the share unit as the ‘multiplier’ and the rate as the ‘multiplicand’, the learned judge did not appear to have given proper effect to the phrase “in proportion to the allocated share units” of sub-s. 21(2) and sub-s. 25(3) of the SMA 2013. Accordingly, we do not think that the description of the share unit as the ‘multiplier’ and the rate as the ‘multiplicand’ is apposite.” [49] The facts for the decision in Rajawali can be distinguished from the facts in our present case. In the present case, the calculation of the total allocated share units is not based on the formula as set out in the First Schedule [Section 8] of SMA 2013, unlike the calculation in Rajawali. The calculation of the share units in this development is based on the SiFUS dated 13.4.2016 that was approved by the Director of Land and Mines of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. The relevant part of the SiFUS states as below: S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 21 of 38 Asas Kiraan Unit Syer: Bil. Jenis Pembangunan Bilangan Petak Kiraan Unit Syer 1. Pangsapuri Servis 403 Keluasan Lantai Binaan + [Keluasan Petak Aksesori (Tempat Letak Kereta)] + [Keluasan Petak Aksesori (Selain Tempat Letak Kereta) / 2] x Faktor 1 2. Perniagaan (Shopping Mall) 1 Keluasan Lantai Binaan + [Keluasan Petak Aksesori (Selain Tempet Letak Kereta)] x Faktor 5 3. Tempat Letak Kereta 1 Keluasan Lantai Biaaan x Faktor 5 [50] Based on the formula provided in the SiFUS, the total share units for the entire development is 129,315, and the assigned aggregate share units for the residential parcels, the Mall and the car park are as below: Parcels Units Aggregate Share Units Residential 403 42,325 The Mall 1 51,980 Car Park 1 35,010 Total 405 129,315 [51] The consideration of Weightage Factor (WF) 1, 2 or 3 (based on the First Schedule [Section 8] of SMA 2013) is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, the consideration of a so called “discount” already being factored in and a further discount of 42% as mentioned in Rajawali for the S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 22 of 38 car park parcel there is not applicable in our present case. The conclusion in Rajawali that there could only be one rate for all parcels has to be confined to its peculiar facts. [52] SMA 2013 is a social legislation. Likewise, the HDA 1966 and HDR 1989 are also social legislation. They are intended to achieve a common goal for the common good of the society. We are of the view that the formula in the Fifth Schedule of the SPA or the current Schedule H cannot be applied mechanically without giving due consideration of the peculiar facts in a mixed development. [53] The term “total expenses” has to be understood to be corresponding to the relevant expenses for the relevant parcels’ owners. For example, item 13 in the Form of Charge Statement which refers to “swimming pool maintenance”. Swimming pool is one of the exclusive common facilities provided under the Second Schedule of the SPA. Therefore, the expenses to upkeep the swimming pool are only relevant for the overall expenses for the residential parcels’ owners. The expenses to upkeep the swimming pool should not be included as part of the expenses for the commercial parcels’ owners. Therefore, in order to formulate a rate to represent a fair and justifiable proportion of the expenses for maintenance and management of the common property, it is important to look at the type of expenses which are relevant and correspond to the type of parcels where there are more than one type of parcels. If a development has only one type of parcel, namely only residential parcels, then all residential parcels’ owners would have common rights. They will have to share the expenses as a whole, and contribute to the expenses based on their proportion to the share units assigned or allocated to them. S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 23 of 38 [54] In a mixed development, like the one before us, the exclusive common facilities are exclusively for the benefit and enjoyment of the residential parcels’ owners. The expenditure for the maintenance and management of these exclusive common facilities which are exclusively for the benefit of the residential parcels’ owners should not be included in the formula for the chargeable rate for the commercial parcels owners who have no right to enjoy such exclusive common facilities. The rigid imposition of only one chargeable rate for maintenance charges for residential parcels and commercial parcels would not reflect the true construction of a social legislation. [55] Section 52(2) of the SMA 2013 states as follows: “(2) During the preliminary management period, the amount of the Charges to be paid under subsection (1) shall be determined by the developer in proportion to the share units assigned to each parcel.” [56] As explained earlier, the “total expenses” must be understood in the context as expenses relevant to the parcels concerned and to be shared in proportion to the share units assigned to each parcel relevant to those expenses in the whole development. The developer is, therefore, tasked to determine the chargeable rate based on the total expenses which are relevant to the relevant parcels concerned in the whole development. Otherwise, there is no need for the law to state that the amount of Charges (or the rate) to be paid “shall be determined by the developer.” If there can only be one amount of Charges (or one rate), the law would have been worded in this way: “During the preliminary management period, the amount of the Charges to be paid under subsection (1) shall be in proportion to the share units assigned to each parcel.” S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 24 of 38 [57] Section 52 (6) of the SMA 2013 allows a proprietor who is not satisfied with the sums determined by the developer to apply to the Commissioner of Buildings for a review. The Commissioner is empowered to review the sums chargeable and may (a) determine himself the sum to be paid as the charges (including the contribution to the sinking fund), or (b) instruct the developer to appoint a registered property manager to recommend the sum payable as charges (including the contribution to the sinking fund) by submitting a report to the Commissioner. Upon receiving the report, sub-s (7) states that the Commissioner shall determine the sum payable as he thinks just and reasonable. [58] Reading sub-s. 52(6) and (7) together proffers: (i) the formula for the calculation of the charges (or the rate) is not rigid, otherwise, there is no reason to give the Commissioner of Buildings the power to review the charges that have been determined by the developer; (ii) the use of the word “sums” in sub-s (6), i.e., “Any proprietor who is not satisfied with the sums….”, connotes there could be more than one rate of charges for maintenance charges or contribution to the sinking fund; (iii) the appointment of a registered property manager to recommend the sums payable as charges simply means there could be more than one way of tabulating what could be the expenses to be included and/or excluded in the total expenses which are relevant to determine the charges (the rate); and lastly, (iv) there should not be a rigid application of the formula. The determination of the charges (the rate) must be based on the principle of just and reasonable under the SMA 2013 and fair and justifiable under the SPA in this present case to determine the proportions with respect to S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 25 of 38 different parcels’ owners having regard to the rights of use of the common facilities of the parcels concerned in a mixed development. [59] Based on the above analysis, reading the SMA 2013 together with the SPA, and considering the relevant Schedules of the HDR 1989 and the HDA 1966, we find that the Developer was entitled in law to impose different chargeable rates between the residential parcels and commercial parcels for the maintenance charges and contribution to the sinking fund in the development during the preliminary management period. Therefore, our answer to the first question of law is in the affirmative. The second question of law – Determining the rates of charges during the MC’s period [60] Chapter 3 of the SMA 2013 deals with the management corporation. Section 57(1) of the SMA 2013 compels a developer to convene the 1st AGM of the management corporation within one month after the expiration of the initial period. On 26.1.2019, the 1st AGM was convened. One Mr. Munif Azhan from Henry Butcher Malaysia (Mont Kiara) Sdn Bhd was the person authorized by the Developer to conduct the 1st AGM. He presented an annual budget for the year 2019 based on the income and expenditure as at 31.10.2018. The preparation of the annual budget was to comply with s. 57(4) of the SMA 2013. [61] Section 58(b) of the SMA 1013 requires that one of the items in the agenda for the 1st AGM of the management corporation is to consider the budget prepared by the developer. The annual budget prepared by the Developer showed that the total budget expenditure (including contingency) for the residential parcels was RM123,444.57; whereas, the S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 26 of 38 total budget expenditure (including contingency) for the Mall (including the car park parcel) was RM9,420.09. There was a great disparity between the budget expenditure for the residential parcels and the commercial parcels. [62] It was highlighted in the meeting that there would be a monthly deficit of RM29,438.67 based on the current rate of service charges fixed at RM2.22 per share unit for the residential parcels. It was also highlighted in the meeting that the deficit for the last two years was absorbed by the Developer. A vote of show of hands was carried out to pass a resolution to revise the rates for the maintenance charges and contribution of sinking fund. The result was 18 for and 2 against the revision of the rate for maintenance charges to increase from RM2.22 to RM2.92 per share unit for the residential parcels and the rate for sinking fund to be maintained. The charges for the commercial parcels were maintained by majority vote. [63] Sections 58(c) and 59(b) of the SMA 2013 respectively empower the management corporation to decide whether to confirm or vary any amount determined as the maintenance charges, and to determine and impose the charges. The crucial question is whether the management corporation could approve different rates for maintenance charges for residential and commercial parcels in a single development? [64] Section 60(3) of the SMA 2013 states as follows: “60. Maintenance account of the management corporation (1) …. (2) .... S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 27 of 38 (3) Subject to section 52, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the maintenance account, the management corporation may at a general meeting – (a) determine from time to time the amount to be raised for the purposes mentioned in subsection 50(3); (b) raise the amounts so determined by imposing Charges on the proprietors in proportion to the share units or provisional share units of their respective parcels or provisional blocks, and the management corporation may determine different rates of Charges to be paid in respect of parcels which are used for significantly different purposes and in respect of the provisional blocks; and (c) determine the amount of interest payable by a proprietor in respect of late payments which shall not exceed the rate of ten per cent per annum….” [65] The plain meaning in s. 60(3) of the SMA 2013 proffers that, first, the management corporation may increase the amount to meet the actual or expected general or regular expenditure necessary in respect of the expenditure spelled out in s. 50(3)(a) to (n) of the SMA 2013. Secondly, if the amount is increased, the management corporation is to adjust the chargeable rate based on the increased amount. Thirdly, the management corporation “may determine different rates of the Charges to be paid in respect of parcels which are used for significantly different purposes” and also “in respect of the provisional blocks”. Lastly, the management corporation is to determine the interest chargeable for late payments. [66] Different rates are allowed to be imposed for parcels in relation to a subdivided building which are used for significantly different purposes and for provisional blocks. S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 28 of 38 [67] It is instructive to understand that there are two types of strata title. Section 16 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (STA 1985) states that the Registrar (Registrar of Titles or Deputy Registrar of Titles for the State or Land Administrator for the District, whichever is applicable) shall prepare documents of strata title in respect of (a) a parcel; and (b) a provisional block. In other words, there are strata tiles for parcels in a subdivided building (or land) and strata titles for provisional blocks. [68] With regard to strata titled parcels in a subdivided building, if there are parcels within the subdivided building which are used for significantly different purposes, then the management corporation is empowered to impose different chargeable rates for parcels which are used for significantly different purposes. Likewise, if there are provisional blocks, the management corporation is empowered to impose different chargeable rates for the provisional blocks. It is to be noted that both the words “parcels” and “blocks” were used in plural form. This connotes that the law has envisaged a situation like the instant case, where a building is subdivided into parcels with separate strata titles, and the parcels are used for more than one type of purposes, such as parcels for residential purpose and parcels for commercial purpose within single development, then the management corporation is permitted in law to charge different rates for parcels that are used for significantly different purposes. [69] Insofar as the formula to determine the rate of charges is concerned, it is the total expenses (or estimated expenses) divided by the total allocated share units (as explained earlier). The share units could be determined by a SiFUS or through the formula as provided in the First Schedule [Section 8] of the SMA 2013. S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 29 of 38 [70] If one is to take the total expenses (or estimated expenses), including the expenses for the common properties which are exclusively for the use of the residents of the residential parcels and divide by the entire share units in the development as the only denominator, the result could only produce a single rate. If this approach is the only approach, why then did the law provide that the management corporation “may determine different rates of Charges”? The only plausible answer lies in the words “used for significantly different purposes”. The phrase “used for significantly different purposes” simply connotes the use of the parcels is distinctly different. Residential parcels and commercial parcels are used for significantly different purposes. [71] The management corporation could demarcate those expenses (or estimated expenses) for the residential parcels and the commercial parcels. Once the total expenses (or estimated expenses) are demarcated and determined, the same formula can be used to determine the rate of charges, namely the specific expenses are to be divided by the total share units of the residential parcels and commercial parcels respectively, i.e., in proportion to the share units of their respective parcels. [72] In the present case, the total estimated expenses for the residential parcels and commercial parcels were presented at the 1st AGM, and the amounts are as below: Parcels Expenditure (after contingency) Residential RM123,444.00 Commercial RM9,420.09 S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 30 of 38 [73] Based on the estimated expenditure and the chargeable rate at that material time, there would be a deficit of RM29,438.67 for the expenses of the residential parcels. As such, it was proposed that the chargeable rate for the residential parcels be increased from RM2.22 to RM2.92. The amount of RM2.92 derived from the tabulation as below: RM123,444.00 -------------------- = RM2.92 (round up figure) 42,325 (total share units for the residential parcels) [74] Insofar as the commercial parcels were concerned, the chargeable rate of RM0.11 per share unit was still sufficient to cover the estimated expenses. As such, the majority had voted that there be no increase in the chargeable rate for the commercial parcels. [75] The MC’s counsel submitted that it was based on the above formula and calculation that the different rates were derived. [76] The learned High Court Judge took the view that the MC could only exercise its powers to impose different rate under s. 60(3)(b) of the SMA 2013 “where it can be shown the affected parcels are subsequently used for ‘significantly different purposes’ from the original purpose.” The learned High Court Judge stated as follows: “[42] In my view the phrase ‘significantly different purposes’ refer to the purpose of each parcel in relation to the original purpose of each parcel has already been allocated its respective share units. There must be a significant change from its original purpose to entitle a different rate to be imposed. In other words, S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 31 of 38 subsection 60(3) of the SMA is an exception to the general rule provided by subsection 59(2) of the SMA. The uniform rate remains based on the proportion to share units each parcel holds until it can be shown that the parcels are used for ‘significantly different purposes’. This interpretation is in accord with the purposive approach to protect the apartment proprietors who are the weaker position.” [77] In short, the learned High Court Judge took the view that the purpose of the parcel concerned must have gone through a significant change from its original purpose before different rates could be imposed by the MC. This Court is of the considered view that this interpretation is incorrect. The plain language of s. 60(3)(b) of the SMA 2013 does not make mention of any change with reference to original purpose. [78] In fact, looking at the entire regime of the SMA 2013, not a single section has mentioned change of use from the original purpose to another purpose for a parcel. Further, s. 34(4) of the STA 1985 states that “a proprietor is not allowed to apply for any amendment of the express conditions on his documents of strata title.” Therefore, the use of the parcel could not be changed. Reading words into s. 60(3)(b) of the SMA 2013 is plainly wrong. The learned High Court Judge had fell into error by reading s. 60(3)(b) of the SMA 2013 in that fashion. [79] The language used in the section is clear and unambiguous. The phrase ‘for significantly different purposes’ must be understood in reference to the noun before the phrase which is the word ‘parcels’ as mentioned earlier. Therefore, one has to compare the group of parcels whether among them there are any parcels being used for significantly different purposes. It is a fundamental error to read into the sentence that those “parcels” have departed from their original purpose. If Parliament intended the meaning to refer to a parcel which purpose has changed from S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 32 of 38 its original purpose, then Parliament would have said so in clear words. We are not inclined to accept the interpretation adopted by the learned High Court Judge as the correct position of the law. [80] There are significantly different purposes in the use of the parcels for this development in that there are parcels used for residential purpose and there are parcels used for commercial (Mall and car park) purposes. [81] Chapter 4 of s. 65 of the SMA 2013 read together with s. 17A of the STA 1985 recognize that there could be common property exclusively for the benefit of certain proprietors, and these proprietors are to share and contribute to those expenses to maintain the exclusive common property. These laws anticipate that different chargeable rates can be imposed. [82] The question raised by the parties is what is the test to be applied by the MC when imposing different rates. The counsel for the MC urged this Court to adopt the laws in other jurisdictions, such as the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 in Singapore, and the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (No. 50) in New South Wales, Australia. The MC’s counsel submitted that the rates of charges imposed could only be nullified if it is shown that they are inadequate, excessive or unreasonable. [83] We are of the view that we need not look across the borders to find the answer. In fact, the answer lies within the SMA 2013 itself. [84] As mentioned earlier, during the preliminary management period, any proprietor who is not satisfied with the sums determined by the developer may apply to the Commissioner of Buildings for a review (see S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 33 of 38 s.52(7) of the SMA 2013). The Commissioner of Buildings shall determine the sum payable as he thinks just and reasonable. The application of the principle of just and reasonable is also found in s. 12(8) of the SMA 2013, when a management corporation has yet to come into existence. [85] Within the regime of our own strata title law, it could be distilled from ss. 12(8) and 52(7) of the SMA 2013 that the test for determining chargeable rates or different chargeable rates, as the case may be, is “just and reasonable”. The sums charged must be just in the sense that one must pay for what one is entitled to enjoy and to share his responsibility with those who share the same rights and benefits. The sums charged must be reasonable in the sense that the identified expenses for the common property must not be excessive or unreasonable. [86] In the present case, the annual budget presented at the 1st AGM had provided three types of expenses, namely, fixed expenditures, variable expenditures and utility charges. Most of the items in the expenditure list were expenses for maintaining the exclusive common facilities which were for the exclusive use of the residential parcels. There are only a few items which were shared with the commercial parcels. Those shared items were (i) management staff cost, (ii) management fee, (iii) rubbish disposal services, (iv) insurance, (v) quit rent, (vi) audit fee, (vii) stationery, (viii) printing and photocopy charges, and (ix) postage and courier expenses. [87] The total expenditure for the residential parcels was RM122,222.34 (excluding 1% contingency) as opposed to the total expenditure for the commercial parcels of only RM9,326.82 (excluding 1% contingency). If the commercial parcels’ owners were to share the expenses of the S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 34 of 38 residential parcels, the result would be unjust and unreasonable. After having considered the evidence and the application of the law, this Court is satisfied that the charges imposed were just and reasonable with reference to the actual expenses incurred or expected expenditure in respect of the parcels which are used for significantly different purposes as explained above. [88] On 11.3.2019, YSC complained to the Commissioner of Buildings that the Developer had imposed different chargeable rates. On 28.8.2019, the Commissioner of Buildings replied to YSC. The Commissioner of Buildings was satisfied that there was nothing irregular or wrong after it had examined the MC’s letter dated 23.7.2019 explaining how the different chargeable rates came about. [89] The Commissioner of Buildings had considered the different chargeable rates and did not object to the imposition of different chargeable rates by the Developer or by the MC. This means the Commissioner of Buildings accepted that different chargeable rates are permitted in a mixed development. Further, it also means that the different chargeable rates previously imposed by the Developer and the present different chargeable rates imposed by the MC were just and reasonable in the opinion of the Commissioner of Buildings. [90] After having considered the items which the Developer or the MC had taken into consideration in order to derive the different chargeable rates, we are satisfied that the different chargeable rates were just and reasonable. The owners of the residential parcels were not over-charged. The identified items were indeed expenditure for the maintenance of the S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 35 of 38 exclusive common facilities which were provided exclusively for the residential parcels. [91] We could not find the commercial parcels’ owners had abused their majority voting rights. They did not arbitrarily pass the resolution for their own advantage to have different chargeable rates. Likewise, the Developer did not arbitrarily determine the chargeable rates under s. 52(2) of the SMA 2013. Hence, based on the analysis of the law and the reasoning herein, we answer the second question of law in the affirmative. Locus Standi [92] Insofar as to the question whether YSC has the locus standi to commence the OS action, we are of the view that the decisions of the Developer and the MC had affected his interest. We are also of the view that the questions of law before us have significant public interest, especially to those purchasers who have purchased a property, be it residential or commercial purposes, in a mixed development who would have to deal with the same issues raised before us. Therefore, we take the locus standi issue as secondary to the more pressing questions of law before us which are of first priority and we have proceeded to hear the appeals bearing in mind the public interest element in the dispute. Summary [93] After having considered the facts and evidence before us, we are satisfied that the legal regime within the SMA 2013 permits a developer and/or management corporation to impose different chargeable rates for the maintenance charges for parcels used for significantly different S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 36 of 38 purposes in a mixed development which comprises of residential and commercial parcels within a subdivided building in a single development. Insofar as the chargeable rate for the contribution of the sinking fund is concerned, it shall be in accordance with s. 12(4) or 52(3) of the SMA 2013 vis-à-vis a sum equivalent to ten percent of the charges for the maintenance charges. Conclusion [94] For the above reasons, we are satisfied that the learned High Court Judge has misinterpreted the relevant sections of the SMA 2013 and other relevant laws which warrants us to disturb his decision. Therefore, we unanimously allow both the appeals. We further order that the High Court Order dated 23.6.2022 be set aside. We also order that there shall be no order as to costs. - Sgd - (CHOO KAH SING) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Date: 18.12.2023 S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 37 of 38 Appeal 1323 Counsel(s) for the Appellants (Developer and CP owner) Michael Chow Keat Thye (Neoh Kai Sheng with him) Tetuan Michael Chow Counsel(s) for the 1st Respondent (YSC) VL Decruz (Claudia Lynette Silva, Leon Fernandez with him) Tetuan VL Decruz & Co. Counsel(s) for the 2nd Respondent (MC) Lai Chee Hoe (Koo Jia Hung, Wong Chee Wing with him) Tetuan Chee Hoe & Associates S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 38 of 38 Appeal 1389 Counsel(s) for the Appellant (MC) Lai Chee Hoe (Koo Jia Hung, Wong Chee Wing with him) Tetuan Chee Hoe & Associates Counsel(s) for the 1st Respondent (YSC) VL Decruz (Claudia Lynette Silva, Leon Fernandez with him) Tetuan VL Decruz & Co. Counsel(s) for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Developer and CP owner) Michael Chow Keat Thye (Neoh Kai Sheng with him) Tetuan Michael Chow S/N kbhrlaosKUYDztTxo3qDg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24C-234-12/2022

PEMOHON CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD RESPONDEN MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD

Enclosure 1. Conversely in Originating Summons no. WA-24C-234-12/2022 (OS 234), CSCE has on the other hand applied to enforce the AD in accordance with section 28 of CIPAA.

21/12/2023

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dd81ea4e-9b95-4007-9a7a-a1edb404f95e&Inline=true

IN THE HIGH COURY OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR ORIGNATING SUMONS NO. WA-24C-220-11/2022 In the matter of a Letter of Award between China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd and Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd dated 12.11.2018; And In the matter of an Adjudication between China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd as Claimant and Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd as Respondent (Adjudication Reference No. AIAC/D/ADJ-4334-2022); And In the matter of an Adjudication Decision by the Adjudicator, Dr. Sivasangaran Nadarajah dated 25.10.2022; And In the matter of Section 6, 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26 and/or 27 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (Act 746); 21/12/2023 15:48:19 WA-24C-234-12/2022 Kand. 29 S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal And In the matter of Regulation 7 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Regulations 2014; And In the matter of Orders 7, 28 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. BETWEEN MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD (Company No.: 817545-D) …PLAINTIFF AND CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD (Company No.: 1060634-X) …DEFENDANT Heard together with IN THE HIGH COURY OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR ORIGNATING SUMONS NO. WA-24C-234-12/2022 S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal In the matter of An adjudication proceeding between China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd (Claimant) and Minda Muhibbah Sdn Bhd (Respondent) under adjudication proceeding reference no. AIAC/D/ADJ- 4334-2022; And In the matter of an Adjudication Decision dated 25.10.2022 by Dr Sivasangaran Nadarajah; And In the matter of Section 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012; And In the matter of Order 7, 28, 69A Rule 2 and 5 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 2012; BETWEEN CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD (Company No.: 201301030805 / 1060634-X) …PLAINTIF S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal AND MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD (Company No.: 200801016255 / 817545-D) …DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) Introduction [1] In Originating Summons No. WA-24C-220-11/2022 (OS 220), Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd (“MMSB”) has applied to set aside the Adjudication Decision dated 25.10.2022 (“AD”) given in favour of China State Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd (“CSCE”) pursuant to section 15 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”). [2] The grounds in support of OS 220 are summarized as follows:- 2.1 the Settlement Agreement (“SA”)(which is detailed below) had superseded the pre -existing Letter of award (“LOA”) which governed the relationship between the parties; 2.2 the SA is not a Construction contract under section 2 CIPAA and thus ought not to be subject to adjudication under CIPAA; 2.3 based on the above, the Adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [3] Conversely in Originating Summons no. WA-24C-234-12/2022 (OS 234), CSCE has on the other hand applied to enforce the AD in accordance with section 28 of CIPAA. Background Facts [4] By way of the Letter of Award dated 12.11.2018 (“LOA”), MMSB appointed CSCE as main contractor to construct and complete a project referred as “Main Building Works for Cadangan Pembangunan Komersial 2, Blok Pejabat 15 Tingkat yang Mengandungi : (1) Pejabat Jenis ‘Garden Terrace’ Dengan Mezanin Di Atas Podium , (2) 9 Tingkat Pejabat Jenis Office Suite Di Aras 1- 9, (3) Pejabat Korporat di Aras 13, (4) 1 tingkat Ruang-Ruang Niaga Termasuk Mezanin Di Aras Podium, (5) 1 Tingkat Tempat Letak Kereta Separa Besmen, (6) 4 Tinagkat Basemen Tempat Letak Kereta, (7) 2 Tingkat Kemudakah Di Aras 12, (8) Sebuah pencawang Elektrik, (9) Sebuah Pusat Pemuang SAmpah di atas Lot 3065 Dan Lot 3085 Jalan Datuk Sulaiman, Sungai Penchala, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur Untuk Tetuan Nik Hamdan Bin Nik Yusoff” (“the Project”). [5] CSCE failed to compete the Project within the stipulated timeframe, whereby the original completion date was 30.6.2020. [6] On 26.10.2024 CSCE served MMSB with a Payment Claim (‘PC-1’) claiming a total of RM7,067,677.42 for alleged non-payment of works by MMSB, wit the intention of advancing the claim to adjudication of the payment amount was not met. S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [7] Pursuant to the PC-1, both representatives from MMSB and CSCE had a fruitful meeting on 2.11.2021 to discuss solutions going forward. [8] Thereafter, , MMSB and the CSCE entered into a settlement vide a letter dated 23.11.2021 (“Settlement Agreement”) for MMSB to pay CSCE a preliminary total of RM5,703,865.52. [9] MMSB contends that the aforementioned amount is for: i. the interim payment certificates (“IPC”) No. 18-25 which has been issued by CSCE; and ii. Interest on IPC;s NO 8-25 [10] Furthermore, there is also a clause in the Settlement Agreement stipulating further payment to be made by MMSB to CSCE for the subsequent IPSs to be issued by CSCE for remaining works to be completed under the Project which is stipulated as follows: 5. There will be continued payment for monthly basis for a certificate issued. [11] In return, CSCE was required to complete the Project by 31.8.2022. [12] The payment schedule is as follows: Payment date Amount Remarks 26.11.2021 RM1,134,197.10 Paid in full 5.12.2021 RM1,713,997.72 Paid in full 5.1.2022 RM1,348,338.12 Paid in full S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20.1.2022 RM1,507,332.58 Paid in full [13] Despite the Settlement Agreement, MMSB was served with a subsequent Payment Claim (No. 2) dated 24.6.2022, this time purportedly for the following: i. Certified sums due under IPCs No. 18-32, 34 and 35; and ii. Interest on account of late payment for IPC No. 18-32, 34 and 35. [14] The matter advanced quickly to adjudication, with Dr. Sivasangaran Nadarajah (“Adjudicator”) publishing his Adjudication Decision (“AD” on 25.10.2022. [15] The AD was in favour of CSCE, wit it stipulating that MMSB would be required to pay the adjudicates sum of RM5,285,194.28 along with RM98,621.27 being the Pre-Award Interest and RM82,798.50 being the costs of adjudication which takes the total to RM5,566,614.05, despite the fact that the dispute between both parties stems form the alleged branch of the Settlement Agreement. Submissions and Findings Settlement Agreement [16] Learned counsel for MMSB had argued inter alia that paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement (“SA”) should extend to other certificates issued by CSCE. After perusing the AD at enclosure 6 of OS 220 exhibit MS-6, I note that the Adjudicator had accepted the IPC’s up S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal to No. 25 were outside his jurisdiction as they were to be paid under the SA with the reasoning that the “CIPAA claim must relate to purely for ‘payment of work done or services rendered’ and not per the Settlement” and found that only IPC’S No 28-32, 34 and 35 can be adjudicated. [17] I have also examined the SA at enclosure 3 of OS 220, in particular paragraph 5 of the SA which was issued by the CSCE, and which expressly provides “There will be continued payment for monthly basis for a certificate issued”. Learned counsel for MMSB had contended that the Arbitrator had determined that the said paragraph 5 did not alter payment schedules for new payments, and submit that this cannot be as it would render paragraph 5 meaningless. [18] In this context, I have read the entire SA and considered the whole subject matter of the Adjudication Proceedings and I find that under the Payment Claim dated 26.10.2021 involved the First Payment Claim for Interim Payment Certificates (“IPC’s”) no. 18 -25. [19] I have also viewed the chronology of events as pointed out in CSCE’s Written Submissions and hold that the Adjudication Proceedings only relates to the 2nd Payment Claim which refers only to IPC’s beyond the first Payment Claim i.e IPC’s nos. 28 -32, 34 and 35 which was issued by CSCE due to MMSB’s persistent non payment and delayed payment issues. [20] After reading the said SA and the AD, I note that:- S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (i) the said paragraph 5 of the SA does contains the word ‘monthly basis’ and (ii) CSCE contended that this explains why the SA contained the heading ‘Withdrawal of Payment Claim’ as the heading of the SA in full is in fact “Withdrawal of Payment Claim dated 26th October 2021 and Term of Settlement” which denotes that the SA was not only in relation to the PC 26.10.2021 but to the terms of settlement between the parties due to paragraph 5 of the SA; (iii) there is expressly stated in the SA that “All the other terms and conditions shall remain as per the Contract”; (iv) that MMSB had contended that as a whole the SA is a departure from the LOA, and relied on the contra proferentum rule where any ambiguity is to be interpreted against the party drafting the document i.e the SA; (v) that the Adjudicator had in paragraphs 12.17 to 12.19 of the AD referred to the PAM contract 2006 and found amongst others that the said PAM Contract ‘…makes no provision for partial payment’ and clause 30.1 of the PAM Contract ‘detailed the certification process, including the provision that payment is to be made within the Period of Honouring Certificates’ thereby concluding that there was no variance to the subsequent payment obligations. S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [21] With respect, I hold from my above findings, that the decision of the Adjudicator on the SA, the LOA and the relationship of the parties pursuant thereto is one which relates to the interpretation of the SA and the finding that there is a restatement if the commitment that monthly payments are to be made within a period of 60 days. The issue of the interpretation of the SA, LOA, PAM Contract are in my decision, one within the realm of the Adjudicator. [22] I hold that the above Adjudicators findings do not in law go towards an error of jurisdiction as any error of misconstruing the SA and the terms of the LOA or PAM Contract, as it maybe, only relates to a finding of fact, see MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd v Southern Builders (J) Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 1426. This would then be an issue of going towards the merits of the case and an appeal against that decision which is not covered under or in essence a ground provided for under section 15 CIPAA. [23] In any event I am referred to the case of Ritma Hebat Sdn Bhd v Kayangan Kemas Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 2034 by learned counsel for CSCE in respect of the distinction between Settlement Agreement’s under the Construction contract and that which is removed from the Construction Contract which they submit the SA here is not a Settlement Agreement per se but a commitment to ensure monthly payments will be made. [24] Following from that I find that the Adjudicator had applied his mind to the arguments raised by MMSB in the Adjudication proceedings and came to the conclusion that he had the jurisdiction to decide on the IPC’s. The law is settled that whether the Adjudicator was right or S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wrong in his decision, his decision is enforceable so long as he has asked himself the right questions as per Aston Villa Sdn Bhd v Infra Segi Sdn Bhd And Another [2018] 11 MLJ 165. [25] Further to the above, I am also minded that the Adjudicator can under section 27(3) CIPAA, proceed and complete the Adjudication proceedings even if there is a jurisdictional challenge raised as the said section provides (3) Notwithstanding a jurisdictional challenge, the adjudicator may in his discretion proceed and complete the adjudication proceedings without prejudice to the rights of any party to apply to set aside the adjudication decision under section 15 or to oppose the application to enforce the adjudication decision under subsection 28(1). [26] Thus, in the circumstances I find that the issue of whether the SA is not a Construction contract under section 2 CIPAA and thus ought not to be subject to adjudication under CIPAA was duly considered by the Adjudicator and is accordingly not subject to challenge herein. [27] I am therefore agreeable with CSCE that the Adjudicator had not acted in excess of his jurisdiction and that Adjudicator’s error be it in fact or law, if any, in his decision can be rectified at the arbitration proceedings. Enforcement of Adjudication Decision S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [28] As the Court is not with MMSB in its application to set aside the AD, there is now no further impediment to the AD being enforced. I am satisfied that MMSB has to-date not paid the Adjudicated sum to CSCE despite there being a demand for the same from CSCE. [29] Accordingly, I am allowing the section 28 CIPAA application in OS 234. Decision [30] In the circumstances I am dismissing OS 220 with costs and accordingly am granting Order in Terms for OS 234 prayers 1, 2, a, b, c and d and 3 of enclosure 1 thereto. Dated: 11th day of October 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF (suit 220) / DEFENDANT (suit 234): Daniel Bock Jr Wei and Aaron Aiman Thangarajoo [Messrs Shukor Baljit & Partners] COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT (suit 220) / PLAINTIFF (suit 234): Kee Meng Fai, Tan Tiam Poh and Haris Hilman [Messrs Belden] S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N TuqB3ZWbB0CaeqHttAT5Xg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22C-56-07/2022

PLAINTIF BTS CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN 1. ) KONG KOK MING 2. ) LEOW LI HWA

Enclosure 14. In the application under enclosure 14, the Defendants had applied under amongst others Order 13 rule 8 and/or Order 43 rule 13 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the rules of Court 2012 to set aside the Judgment in Default dated 20.10.2022 (“JID”) obtained against them (Enclosure 14).

21/12/2023

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=00548809-37a8-436f-9bd0-7b46523f0039&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAHKAMAH PEMBINAAN) GUAMAN SIVIL NO. WA-22C-56-07/2022 ANTARA BTS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) (No. Syarikat: 200701039171 (797202-D) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. KONG KOK MING (No. K/P: 730406-10-5051) 2. LEOW LI HWA (No. K/P: 750418-05-5176) …DEFENDAN- DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 14) Application [1] In the application under enclosure 14, the Defendants had applied under amongst others Order 13 rule 8 and/or Order 43 rule 13 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the rules of Court 2012 to set aside the Judgment in Default dated 20.10.2022 (“JID”) obtained against them (Enclosure 14). 21/12/2023 12:50:46 WA-22C-56-07/2022 Kand. 40 S/N CYhUAKg3b0Ob0HtGUj8AOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] Among the grounds relied on for Enclosure 14 are as follows:- (i) the Writ and Statement of Claim herein were not served on the Defendants (ii) the JID was not served on the Defendants (iii) the Defendants have a good and valid defence on the merits against the Plaintiff’s claim; and (iv) there are issues to be tried Background Facts [3] On 30.3.2017, the Plaintiff was wound up through a Company Winding Up Order dated 30.3.2017 (Case No: WA-28NCC-958- 11/2016) where the First Defendant is a director while the Second Defendant is a former director of the said company. [4] On 11.12.2020, the Plaintiff had filed one (1) Originating Summons dated 11.12.2020 against the Defendants, seeking among others to provide copies of all the Plaintiff's documents in Schedule A in the Originating Summons where the attempt to serve papers- the cause paper by the Plaintiff was sent to 504, Jalan SS94/11, Sungai Way, 47300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor which is the old address of the First Defendant and No. 21, Jalan PH 2/3, Puchong Hartamas, 47100 Puchong, Selangor which is the wrong address for the Second Defendant. S/N CYhUAKg3b0Ob0HtGUj8AOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [5] The Defendants alleges that the Plaintiff had served the cause papers to the old address for the First Defendant and the wrong address for the Second Defendant, and thus both Defendants had at all material times never received the cause papers and had failed to enter an appearance until the Default Judgment was obtained by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. [6] After the Plaintiff obtained the Default Judgment against the Defendants, the Plaintiff had proceeded to file a bankruptcy proceeding against the Second Defendant at the Seremban High Court (Bankruptcy Notice No.: NA-29NCC-32-02/2023) with the address for service in the said proceedings being based on the Second Defendant's mother's address at No. 69, Jalan Melang, Taman Wira Jaya, 72000 Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan where the service of the cause papers for the said bankruptcy proceedings was done. [7] The Second Defendant alleges that he only found out about the Default Judgment and also the bankruptcy proceedings against him when he visited his mother in Negeri Sembilan and his mother informed him that he had received a letter. [8] The Second Defendant then alleges that upon gaining knowledge of the said Default Judgment and the said bankruptcy proceedings, the Second Defendant had immediately filed the said Notice of Application to this Honorable Court for an extension of time to file the said Notice of Application and to set aside the Default Judgment. S/N CYhUAKg3b0Ob0HtGUj8AOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [9] On 20.7.2023, the Defendants through their solicitors filed a Notice of Application dated 20.7.2023 to set aside the Default Judgment and also for a stay of execution to suspend the execution of the Default Judgment pending the disposal of the application before this Court. Analysis & Findings Alleged Delay [10] The Plaintiff had alleged inter alia that there was a delay in filing Enclosure 14 which was not explained and sought that this Court to dismiss Enclosure 14 on that basis. [11] After looking at the chronology of events before this Court, I accept that there was a delay of 9 months in filing Enclosure 14 from date of the Judgment In Default dated 20.10.2022 (“JID”) and a delay of 2 months after the 2nd Defendant, D2, was purportedly aware of the Writ herein and the said JID via the SS Order. The Defendants contention via D2 that he had only notice of the same on 20.5.2023 when the Bankruptcy Proceedings were served at his mother’s house is not supported by any evidence and is at most an uncorroborated averment. [12] I therefore find no reasonable explanation given by the Defendant as to the delay aforementioned which contravenes Order 42 rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012 for the Setting Aside of the JID within 30 days after receipt of the said JID as per the said rule which provides: S/N CYhUAKg3b0Ob0HtGUj8AOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Save as otherwise provided in these rules, where provisions are made in these rules for the setting aside or varying of any order or judgment, a party intending to set aside or to vary such order or judgment shall make an application to the court and serve it on the party who has obtained the order or judgment within thirty days after the receipt of the order or judgment by him. [13] Purely on the sole basis of the unexplained delay, this Court is entitled to dismiss Enclosure 14. Averment in affidavit on behalf of First Defendant (D1) [14] Be that as it may, I have also considered the other submissions by the parties on the matter. [15] The Plaintiff had also argued that D2 was not authorised by D1 to affirm the affidavits filed in respect of Enclosure 14 and thus D2 had no authority to aver any statements on behalf of D1. [16] After perusing the relevant affidavits filed by D2, I hold that the averment in D2’s affidavit purportedly made on D1’s behalf as being improper as being a bare averment to the effect in D2’s affidavit at enclosure 17 that D2 was authorised to affirm the affidavits on D1’s behalf. There is further no evidence whatsoever before this Court that D1 had so authorised D2 to affirm any affidavit on his behalf. Re wrong address S/N CYhUAKg3b0Ob0HtGUj8AOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [17] The Defendant had contended that the service of the Writ and JID were made to the wrong address i.e No 21, Jalan PH 2/3, Puchong Hartamas, 47100 Puchong, Selangor in respect of D2 and for D1 at allegedly her old address at 504, Jalan SS94/11, Sungei Way, 47300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. [18] After perusing the evidence before this Court, I accept that the address for service of the Defendants in the matter before this Court was the same address appearing in the previous OS WA-24C-244- 12/2020 (OS 244) i.e at 504, Jalan SS94/11, Sungei Way, 47300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor between the parties to which the Defendants have not denied the same. [19] I note that there were 3 failed attempts at service to the Defendant’s addresses which appeared in OS 244 and an Order for Substituted Service was then made on 14.9.2022 (“SS Order”) herein and the Writ herein was accordingly properly served in accordance with the said SS Order. Defence [20] I have also had the occasion to look at the Defendant’s draft Statement of Defence and after a perusal of the draft defence, I find that the same does not appear to this Court to have any merits. I say this as there are no supporting evidence being put before this Court on any of the averments thereto. [21] Apart from this, the said draft defence appears to this Court to consist of mostly pure denials of the Plaintiff’s claim and that there is nothing S/N CYhUAKg3b0Ob0HtGUj8AOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 stated or no particulars or details as to why the Projects could not carry on. Decision [22] Based on my aforesaid grounds, the Court hereby dismisses enclosure 14 with costs to be borne by both Defendants. Dated: 13th day of October 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Vibalananthan a/l Krishnan [Messrs Vib & Co.] COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT: Samir Zainal [Messrs Samir Sumathi Fernando & Co.] S/N CYhUAKg3b0Ob0HtGUj8AOQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCC-607-12/2020

PLAINTIF RHB Bank Berhad DEFENDAN Richland Leisure Group Sdn. Bhd. PENCELAH FUJIKURA (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

RESTITUTION: Money paid under mistake - Forged remittance forms - Payments without mandate - Erroneous belief - Processing mistakes – Bank’s negligent confirmation - Failure to detect discrepancies - Right to restitution - Claiming refund from payee - Money paid out through negligence - Innocent third party recipients - No bad faith or dishonesty - Change of position - Provision of gaming chips - Payments to Casino - Duty to inquire - Money had and received - Unjust enrichment - Unintended payee - Contracts Act 1950 Section 73

21/12/2023

YA Tuan Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5a9314f4-1769-4626-bcac-202807691178&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO.: WA-22NCC-607-12/2020 BETWEEN RHB BANK BERHAD (Company No.: 196501000373 (6171-M)) …Plaintiff AND RICHLAND LEISURE GROUP SDN BHD (Company No.: 200901033814 (876927-X) …Defendant AND NG SEANG HENG (NRIC No.: 550210-10-6441) … Third Party JUDGMENT [1] Ng Seang Heng went on a million ringgit gambling spree, not with his own, but someone else's money. Specifically, money from an innocent company's bank account using forged payment instructions. By the time the bank discovered the forged forms based on which it remitted monies to the gambler via a junket operator's account, funds were gone. The junket operator claims it dealt bona fide - immediately putting incoming monies into more casino 21/12/2023 08:12:28 WA-22NCC-607-12/2020 Kand. 148 S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 chips given to Ng. Hence the bank's hopes of recovery hit a blank wall. Now the bank wants the money repaid - but the junket operator says it cannot pay back what it no longer has. The dispute turns on whether the junket operator can be held liable to repay the funds it received due to the bank's mistake. The court will have to determine who will bear the cost of Ng's lavish spending escapade: the bank or the junket operator? Background facts [2] The plaintiff, RHB Bank Berhad (“RHB”), is a licensed bank in Malaysia. The defendant, Richland Leisure Group Sdn Bhd (“Richland”), is a junket operator that has been authorised by Genting Malaysia Berhad (“Genting”) since January 2010 to operate a Local Group Casino Rebate Programme (“Casino Rebate Programme”) at Genting's casino. Under this programme, individuals are enrolled by agents like Richland to participate in the rebate programme when they gamble at Genting's casino. Richland earns a commission from Genting based on the rebate structure for every player it brings in. [3] The dispute arose from three outward telegraphic transfer transactions executed by RHB to remit sums totaling RM1,031,000 from its customer Fujikura (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd’s (“Fujikura”) bank account (“Fujikura’s Account”) to Richland’s bank account with Malayan Banking Berhad S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (Maybank) (“Richland’s Account”) over the period of 11.9.2020 to 18.9.2020. [4] The first transaction occurred on 11.9.2020 when RHB remitted RM286,000 to Richland’s Account based on a remittance application form dated 11.9.2020 submitted to RHB. This form on its face reflected Fujikura as the applicant and authorised the remittance to Richland. It bore a company stamp purporting to be Fujikura’s stamp as well as an authorised signatory’s signature. [5] The second transaction occurred on 14.9.2020, three days later. On this occasion, RM357,000 was remitted following a remittance application form dated 14.9.2020 submitted to RHB, again showing Fujikura as the applicant authorising remittance to Richland, with a similar company stamp and authorised signature. [6] The third transaction occurred on 18.9.2020, four days after the second transaction. This time RM388,000 was remitted based on a remittance form dated 18.9.2020 reflecting the same application details as the previous two forms. [7] Altogether, RHB remitted RM1,031,000 over these three transactions to Richland’s Account based on Fujikura’s apparent authorisation per the remittance forms submitted. RHB processed the forms as they bore signatures and stamps that matched its records for Fujikura at that time. RHB would also call Fujikura’s authorised personnel, per S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 RHB’s standard procedures, to confirm each transaction before remitting the moneys. RHB did accordingly receive confirmation from Fujikura’s authorised representatives before making each of the three payments. [8] However, sometime after 18.9.2020, Fujikura filed a complaint with RHB alleging that it did not authorise or sign those three remittance application forms. After investigating, RHB discovered that the signatures, stamp and authorised personnel details reflected in the three forms did not in fact match or correspond with Fujikura’s actual authorised signatories, stamp and contacts in RHB’s records. RHB thus concluded that the three forms, which induced it to remit RM1,031,000 to Richland, were forged documents that were not genuinely issued or authorised by Fujikura. [9] Premised on this, on 23.9.2020, RHB contacted Richland’s bankers Maybank to request the recall of the RM1,031,000 paid into Richland’s Account. However, by the time RHB notified Maybank, there was only RM2,806.32 remaining in Richland’s Account, the rest having being paid out. Hence the recall attempt was largely unsuccessful. [10] Consequently, RHB filed this action against Richland to recover the RM1,031,000 that was remitted to Richland. RHB’s claim [11] In this action, RHB is claiming against Richland: S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 a) The sum of RM1,031,000.00, being money paid by mistake when RHB remitted this sum from Fujikura's Account to Richland's Account, based on purported payment instructions and authorisations that were subsequently discovered to be forgeries not genuinely made by Fujikura; b) Interest at 5% per annum on the sum of RM1,031,000.00 from the date of demand on 2.11.2020 until full payment; c) Costs of the legal action; and d) Any other relief deemed proper and fit by the court. [12] In summary, RHB paid a total RM1,031,000 by mistake to Richland and is now claiming this amount from Richland on grounds of mistake, money had and received and unjust enrichment. Summary of RHB’s case [13] RHB's case is summarised as follows: a) Fujikura is a customer of RHB holding a current account number 21403500059784 with RHB previously defined as “Fujikura’s Account”. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 b) On 11.9.2020, 14.9.2020 and 18.9.2020 RHB, as a result of a mistake by its employees, remitted a sum of RM286,000, RM357,000 and RM388,000 respectively from Fujikura’s Account to Richland’s Account held with Malayan Banking Berhad bearing account number 50606150 0658. c) Fujikura did not instruct nor authorise RHB to make the said remittances amounting to RM1,031,000 in total to Richland’s Account. The purported instructions or authorisations of Fujikura for the said remittances were forgeries. d) RHB has paid Fujikura the sum of RM1,03 1,000 that was mistakenly remitted from Fujikura’s Account to Richland’s Account without Fujikura’s instructions or authority. e) Richland is liable to return the sum of RM1,03 1,000 that was mistakenly transferred to Richland’s Account or alternatively as money had and received. f) Richland did not change its position in good faith after receipt of the RM1,031,000 and natural justice and equity requires that Richland return the sum of RM1,031,000 to RHB. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Summary of Richland’s case [14] Richland’s case is summarised as follows: a) Richland is authorised by Genting to operate its Casino Rebate Programme and earns commission for players enrolled. b) RM1,031,000 was remitted from Fujikura's Account to Richland’s Account in three transactions on 11.9.2020, 14.9.2020 and 18.9.2020 based on remittance forms. c) These sums were received on behalf of Ng for his enrolment into Genting's Casino Rebate Programme. d) Upon receiving the sums, Richland provided equivalent gaming chips to Ng for use in Genting's casino. e) By end September 2020, Richland had fully paid Genting RM1,031,000 to account for the chips given to Ng. f) Hence Richland did not retain or benefit from the sums received save for minimal commission. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 g) Richland denies liability to to RHB’s claim for the sum of RM1,031,000.00 mainly for the following reasons: i) The sum of RM1,031,000.00 remitted from Fujkura’s Account to Richland’s Account has already been paid to Genting via two separate transactions on 15.9.2020 and 23.9.202, to Genting to account for the value of the non- negotiable gaming chips paid to Ng. Therefore, Richland has not been unjustly enriched through or benefitted from the remitted sums. ii) Richland relied on and acted according to the remittance application forms duly executed by Fujikura together with the confirmation from RHB which approved Fujikura’s remittance application forms and remitted the moneys to Richland’s Account before paying out the non- negotiable gaming chips to Ng. iii) Richland has in good faith materially changed its position by acquiring for value and paying out the non-negotiable gaming chips to Ng in exchange for the sums remitted from Fujikura’s Account to Richland’s Account. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Witnesses [15] RHB called two witnesses whose witness statements are marked “WS-PW1” and “WS-PW2” as follows: a) PW1 is Mingu Lee, Director of Fujikura (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. His evidence was on whether Fujikura authorised the remittance transactions to Richland. His Witness Statement is marked as “WS-PW1.” b) PW2 is Nor Aida Binti Mohd Azelan, the Branch Manager of RHB’s Bandar Mahkota Cheras branch. Her evidence was on the remittance transactions from Fujikura’s Account to Richland’s Account. Her Witness Statement is marked as “WS-PW2.” [16] Richland called one witness, Tan Mun Ting (DW1). She is a Director of the defendant, Richland Leisure Group Sdn Bhd. Her evidence is on the remittance transactions between Fujikura’s Account and Richland’s Account. Her Witness Statement is marked as “WS-DW2.” The law [17] The legal framework governing the recovery of payments made by mistake is well-established and grounded in both common law and statutory provisions. At the core of this legal area is the principle that a person who mistakenly makes a payment to another is prima facie entitled to S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 recover it. This was clearly articulated in the seminal case of Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1979]. In this case, the issue was whether a bank that overlooks a customer's instructions to stop payment on a cheque and pays out the cheque amount by mistake can recover the money from the cheque payee. Barclays bank had paid out a cheque for £24,000 to the defendant after overlooking its customer's (the cheque drawer) instructions to stop payment on that cheque. Upon discovery of the mistake, Barclays sought to recover the £24,000 from the cheque payee. The court had to determine if Barclays was entitled in law to recover the mistaken payment based on principles governing recovery of monies paid by mistake. The key questions examined were the nature of mistake required, defences available to defeat such claims, and the impact of the cheque being paid without mandate from the customer. The key principles were stated by Goff J: “From this formidable line of authority certain simple principles can, in my judgment, be deduced. 1. If a person pays money to another under a mistake of factwhich causes him to make the payment, he is prima facie entitled to recover it as money paid under a mistake of fact. 2. His claim may however fail if: the payer intends that the payee shall have the money at all events, whether the fact be true or false, or is deemed in law so to intend; (b) the payment is made for good consideration, in particular if the money is paid to discharge, and does discharge, a debt owed to the payee (or a principal on whose behalf he is authorised to receive the payment) by the payer or by a third S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 party by whom he is authorised to discharge the debt; (c) the payee has changed his position in good faith, or is deemed in law to have done so.” (emphasis added) [18] Further reinforcing these principles, Section 73 of the Contracts Act 1950 provides a statutory basis for the recovery of money or items delivered by mistake (or under coercion), Section 73 expressly states that money paid under a mistake must be refunded by the recipient. It reads: “73 Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion. A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.” (emphasis added) [19] The principles in Barclays Bank and Section 73 have been endorsed and applied in local cases such as Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd v Hashbudin Bin Hashim [1998] 3 MLJ 262 (High Court), Affin Bank Bhd v MMJ Exchange Sdn Bhd [2011] 9 CLJ 721 (High Court) and The Royal Bank of Scotland Bhd v Seng Huah Hua [2013] 9 MLJ 681 (High Court). [20] Hence, under settled law, prima facie a payor is entitled to recover from the payee money that was paid by mistake S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 subject to limited exceptions including change of position by recipient in good faith. [21] As for recovery of money had and received, this is fundamentally rooted in the principles of equity and natural justice. This doctrine is illustrated in the High Court case of Bank Bumiputra (M) Sdn Bhd v Hasbudin Bin Hashim [supra], which references the historic case of Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005 and the House of Lords decision in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] 2 All ER 122. [22] In Moses v Macferlan, Lord Mansfield established the rationale for an action for money had and received, emphasising its equitable nature. This action is aimed at recovering money which, in fairness and justice, should not be retained by the defendant. It is predicated on the idea that the defendant, under the given circumstances, is bound by the principles of natural justice and equity to refund the money. This action is not applicable for money paid by the plaintiff which is deemed payable in terms of honour and honesty. Instead, it focuses on situations where retaining the money would be against the principles of justice and fairness. [23] Lord Wright, in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd, further elaborated on this principle, stating that it is against conscience for a person to retain S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 money derived from another under circumstances that are unjust. [24] Building upon these principles, the case of Bank Bumiputra (M) Sdn Bhd v Hasbudin Bin Hashim [supra], further reinforced the concept. Similarly, in Ambank (M) Bhd v KB Leisure (M) Sdn Bhd [2012] 7 MLJ 364, the court considered these principles and concluded that the fundamental question to determine in such cases is whether the defendant has received the plaintiff's money under circumstances that would necessitate a refund based on natural justice and equity. This cause of action essentially revolves around the concept of unjust enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff. [25] In essence, the doctrine of recovery of money had and received is an equitable remedy aimed at preventing unjust enrichment. It allows for the recovery of money where it is inequitable for the recipient to retain it, thus ensuring that justice and fairness prevail in transactions where one party inadvertently benefits at the expense of another. Issues [26] After considering the facts of the case and the defences relied on by Richland, the court frames the following issues for deliberation which this court considers pivotal to the resolution of this case: S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 a) Whether RHB can recover the funds mistakenly remitted to Richland based on forged documents, considering RHB's adherence to standard procedures and Richland's defence of change of position in good faith. b) Whether Richland defence of a change in position, having disbursed the funds to Ng which Richland claims to be in good faith for non-negotiable gaming chips, is valid in the context of RHB’s claim for repayment of monies mistakenly remitted. c) Whether Richland should have been put on inquiry regarding the origin of funds used by Ng for gambling activities, given the unusual circumstance of receiving money from a third-party company, Fujikura, with which it had no prior dealings. d) Whether Richland in the context of its defence of change of position, can be considered to have acted in good faith given RHB’s allegation that Richland ignored clear discrepancies in the initial remittance form marked as 'goods payment' with a non-existent invoice, and whether Richland's subsequent advice to Ng regarding remittance references constituted due diligence or deliberate oversight. e) Whether Richland acted in bad faith by swiftly transferring RM1.6 million from its account after S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 being notified of a potential fraud and RHB's attempt to recall the remittances, thereby allegedly dissipating funds to prevent their recovery by RHB. f) Whether Richland is liable to refund RM1,031,000.00 to RHB under the claim of money had and received on the basis that it constitutes unjust enrichment of Richland necessitating a refund. [27] In the ensuing part of this judgment, this court will structure its deliberations around the issues above. Analysis and findings of the court Mistake [28] RHB submits that the mistake in this case stemmed from acting on forged documents. PW1, a director of Fujikura, testified that Fujikura did not issue or sign the Remittance Application Forms, had no dealings with Richland, and did not authorise the transactions in question. RHB's branch manager confirmed that after an investigation prompted by Fujikura's complaint, it was found that the signatures and company stamp on the Remittance Application Forms did not match RHB’s records, thus indicating forgery. Drawing parallels to similar legal cases, such as The Royal Bank of Scotland Bhd v Seng Huah Hua [supra] and Affin Bank Bhd v MMJ Exchange Sdn Bhd [supra]), it is argued that payments made under the mistaken belief of genuine S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 authorisations, as in this case, are recoverable by the bank. Therefore, RHB contends that since the payments to Richland were made under a mistaken belief based on forged documents, unless Richland proves its defence of change of position in good faith, it is liable to repay the mistakenly paid funds. [29] Richland submits that there was no mistake in the three remittance transactions totaling RM1,031,000.00 made by Fujikura to Richland. It argues this based on RHB's adherence to standard operating procedures during the transactions, which involved verifying signatures, checking account balances, and confirming transactions with Fujikura's authorised personnel. Richland points out that all three remittance application forms contained accurate particulars of Fujikura and Richland, including Fujikura's company stamp and director's signature, which were processed as per direct instructions from Fujikura. Additionally, Richland highlights that each transaction was approved only after these procedures were fully complied with, involving multiple officers from RHB’s side. Consequently, Richland contends that RHB’s claim of a mistake is unsustainable, especially given the lack of a contractual relationship between RHB and Richland. [30] Having duly considered the submissions of both RHB and Richland, I will now proceed to state my findings on the matter at hand. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [31] It is conceded by RHB that there was negligence by RHB when it approved the three remittances, even following the standard operating procedures. RHB was indeed deceived by the forgeries of Ng. [32] Even so, I find that there was a mistake by RHB making the remittances on 11.9.2020, 14.9.2020 and 18.9.2020 even if RHB followed its standard operating procedures. What is relevant is whether Fujikura intended to make the payments to Richland and there is no dispute that Fujikura did not intend to do so. The payments were not authorised by Fujikura and then mistakenly made by RHB to Richland’s Account. [33] A bank’s mistake occurring after conducting the necessary checks and in cases of payment under mistake, negligence on the part of the payer does not invalidate the right to recover. [34] In the case of Ambank (M) Bhd v KB Leisure (M) Sdn Bhd [supra], the plaintiff bank sought to recover RM1,074,710.50 from the defendant money changer firm, representing proceeds from three forged cheques drawn on the account of an innocent third party. The forged cheques were used to purchase cashier's orders made payable to the defendant. The defendant claimed to have no knowledge of any fraud and that it received the money as payment for foreign currency it sold to a company called Source Code Asia Sdn Bhd. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [35] The plaintiff bank claimed it acted under the mistaken belief that the cheques presented to purchase the cashier's orders were genuine based on the necessary checks conducted. But the cheques turned out to be forged, so the plaintiff issued the cashier's orders under a mistake. The plaintiff argued that even though its officers made the mistake after conducting checks a bank's negligence is irrelevant and does not prevent recovery of payments made under mistake. Nallini Pathmanathan J (as she then was) stated: “The plaintiff led evidence to indicate that the plaintiff's officers had conducted the necessary checks before the COs were issued, and that more than one officer had checked the documents. Still, the mistake occurred. Nonetheless, it is not for the court to penalise the plaintiff or its officers over this, since it is clear law that in cases of payment under mistake, negligence on the part of the payer does not invalidate the right to recover; Kelly v Solari, Hashbudin Hashim.” (emphasis added) [36] Nevertheless, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish payment by mistake under s 73 of the Contracts Act 1950 or a sustainable claim in money had and received. The defendant had not been unjustly enriched as it gave consideration in foreign currency in exchange for the payment. [37] In the case of Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd v Hashbudin Bin Hashim [supra], the appellant bank sought to recover RM25,000 that was paid by mistake on a cheque that had been countermanded by the bank's customer prior to S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 payment. The Sessions Court dismissed the bank's claim, finding that the mistake was due to the bank teller's negligence rather than a mistake under the Contracts Act. On appeal, the High Court held that the countermand was valid and thus the bank's payment was without mandate. As such, section 73 of the Contracts Act allowing recovery of money paid by mistake applied. The court also found the bank had an alternative cause of action for money had and received under common law. Thus, the appeal was allowed. At page 270, Nik Hashim J (as he then was) stated: “It is settled law that in an action for the recovery of money paid under mistake, the bank's negligence is irrelevant. The Australian case of Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Younis [1979] 1 NSWLR 444 expressly held on the authority of Kelly v Solari that the bank's negligence did not affect its right to recover money paid in mistake.” [38] At page 271, His Lordship further stated: “The provisions of s 73 of the Act are very clear without any exception that the payee must repay the money which has been paid by mistake. It is settled law that in an action for the recovery of money paid under mistake, the bank's negligence is irrelevant.” [39] Negligence of RHB being irrelevant, the real issue for the court to consider is whether Richland can rely on its defence of change of position in good faith which is considered below. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Change of position [40] RHB’s submission is that Richland’s defence of change in position cannot be accepted as Richland did not satisfy the “good faith” requirement. In gist, the contention of Richland is it had in good faith materially changed its position by acquiring for value and disbursing the non-negotiable gaming chips to Ng in exchange for the sum remitted by Fujikura to Richland and it would be detrimental if it were now to be required to refund RHB the moneys remitted by Fujikura. On this, RHB submitted that: a) Richland did not attempt to make any due inquiry even though it knew the moneys were remitted from a third party company and not by Ng; b) Richland turned a blind eye to the obvious discrepancies in the first remittance form stating “goods payment” and a non-existent invoice; and c) Richland swiftly transferred RM1.6 million from its account after becoming aware of the fraud and attempt to recall the moneys from its account. [41] These will be taken in turn below. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Put on inquiry [42] RHB submits that Richland was put on inquiry regarding the origin of funds used by Ng for gambling, as the money came from a third-party company, Fujikura, with which Richland had no prior dealings. This situation was confirmed by DW1 in cross-examination, acknowledging that this was the first instance of receiving funds from Fujikura. Despite the unusual and potentially illegal nature of using company funds for individual gambling, Richland failed to conduct any inquiries into the matter. DW1's testimony indicated a lack of concern about the source of the funds, focusing only on the receipt and tallying of the money with the bank slip. RHB argues that Richland's practice of accepting third-party funds without inquiry, and the unilateral redaction of bank statements without court permission, undermines its defence and may warrant adverse inferences against Richland. [43] Richland submits that the nature of its business dealings with Ng, conducted in the Genting casino, is a common practice and was confirmed by its witness DW1. Richland acknowledges receiving funds from Fujikura, but maintains this is consistent with its usual business of receiving third- party payments, as evidenced by various company names appearing in its Maybank statements. Furthermore, Richland, operating as Genting’s authorised operator for the Casino Rebate Programme since January 2010, asserts that its business practices involve introducing customers to S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 gamble at casinos, thereby earning commissions. Richland contends that RHB's assumption that it is unusual for a company to use its funds for individual gambling is baseless, and emphasises that there is no evidence challenging its common business practice. [44] Upon careful deliberation on the issue of Richland being put on inquiry when receiving third-party funds for gambling activities, the court has evaluated the submissions presented by both RHB and Richland. Having considered the entirety of the arguments and evidence related to this point, the court concludes that Richland's position is more compelling and substantiated. Therefore, on this particular point, the court finds in favour of Richland. [45] Richland's business operations, as elucidated by DW1, involve transactions in the context of a casino, primarily Genting Casino. This is crucial to understanding the normative practices of Richland. Since January 2010, Richland has been engaged in handling funds from diverse sources, as an authorised operator of the Casino Rebate Programme. This point is substantiated by Richland's Maybank statements, which reflect transactions from various months in the year 2020. The bank statements produced were redacted to the extent, full names of the payor were not shown but some words were left to indicate sufficiently that the payments were made by companies. Richland’s position is that these were payments or funds received from third-party companies on behalf of a player. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [46] Although the court may draw an adverse inference against Richland regarding the unilateral redaction (see Pos Logistics Bhd (formerly known as Konsortium Logistic Bhd) v Kumpulan Perubatan Smarthealth Sdn Bhd [2020] 9 MLJ 389), in this case, I will not do so. The nature of the redaction (done for reasons of confidentiality) was only to hide the actual names of the payors leaving enough words to indicate that companies or businesses made the payment. I cannot read anything else into the redacted information when it is quite clear to me that companies or businesses and not individuals made these payments.These statements consistently show entries from entities with designations such as “Enterprise”, “Sdn Bhd”, “Merchant”, “Marketing”, “Services”, “Trading”, “Karaoke Lounge”, “Fashion”, “Solution”, “Resources”, “Store”, “Food House”, “Tech”, “Communication”, “Construct”, “Wholesale”, “Computer”, “Beauty”, “Machine”, “Mobile”, “Stationary”, “Telezone”, and “Auto Trade”. This variety of sources underscores the routine nature of dealing with corporate funds in Richland's business. [47] RHB's argument rests on the premise that it is uncommon and suspicious for a company to use its funds for an individual's gambling activities. This assumption, while perhaps rational in a different business context, lacks concrete evidence or precedence demonstrating that it is an established norm in the casino and gambling industry, particularly in the operations similar to those of Richland. RHB did not lead any evidence to challenge the common S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 business practice of Richland to show that it is “highly unusual” for a company to use its funds for an individual to gamble. In the absence of such evidence, this challenge is merely premised on RHB’s assumptions which is without basis. [48] On the other hand, DW1's testimony clearly establishes that Richland's role in the Casino Rebate Programme involves facilitating customers, including those introduced by third- party companies, to gamble at casinos. This role inherently entails managing funds from a variety of sources for the purpose of gambling. [49] RHB also did not lead any evidence to show that the total sum remitted by Fujikura to Richland for the sum of RM1,031,000.00 is extremely exceptional in the gambling industry. Also, there was no evidence led by RHB to suggest that the risk of fraud is high by the nature of the gambling industry. I find that RHB’s allegations are based on speculation and unsupported by evidence. For this reason, I accept that the transaction between Richland and Ng were carried out in the ordinary course of Richland’s business. [50] The introduction of Fujikura as a new source of funds for Richland's transactions, while indeed the first of its kind, does not automatically necessitate suspicion or a duty of inquiry under the circumstances. The absence of a prior relationship between Richland and Fujikura does not, by S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 itself, indicate any irregularity, especially given the nature of Richland's business and the wide range of its financial dealings. [51] In addition to the above, it is pertinent to note that Richland did not deny receiving the funds from Fujikura. Richland argues, and rightly so in the context of this case, that it has been a common business practice to receive funds from third-party companies on behalf of players. This is a crucial aspect of its operations and is supported by its financial records. Furthermore, Richland has been in operation for almost ten years by September 2020, the date of the transactions in question. This longstanding operation adds weight to Richland's assertion of its business practices being well-established and routine. [52] As a matter of of common sense, companies in their own capacity cannot gamble in Genting’s casino. Further, taking the totality of the evidence before this court which include the evidence that Richland is a junket business of almost 10 years standing which regularly receives funds for the purpose of gambling and Richland receives funds from non- individuals regularly, it can be logically inferred that the funds received by Richland from third party companies is for the purpose of individual players to gamble in Genting’s casino. Richland’s bank statements for year 2020 sufficiently proves Richland’s common business practice. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [53] In conclusion, considering the extensive evidence and the context of Richland's business operations, this court finds that there was no compelling reason for Richland to be put on inquiry before proceeding with the transactions for Ng. RHB’s contentions, while not without merit in a different context, do not adequately challenge the established and routine nature of Richland's business practices. Discrepancies [54] RHB contended that Richland turned a blind eye to certain discrepancies in the first remittance form stating “Goods Payment” and a non-existent invoice. Despite these discrepancies, DW1 did not make any inquiries with Fujikura but instead advised Ng to state in future that the remittance was for “entertainment” or “Ng Seang Heng.” Therefore, according to RHB, Richland could not rely on the “change of position” argument when it was already put on inquiry when the first remittance form was submitted to Richland. [55] Richland submits that RHB's claim of deliberate ignorance of discrepancies in the remittance forms by Richland is unfounded. Firstly, Richland’s action of advising Ng to change the remittance reference from “Good Payment” to “entertainment” or “Ng Seang Heng” demonstrates due diligence rather than disregard for discrepancies. Richland argues that that the remittance form references, prepared by the remitter Fujikura, are outside of Richland's control, as S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 supported by DW1's testimony that Richland commonly receives varying references which are decided by its customers. Moreover, Ng’s compliance with Richland's advice to change the references supports Richland’s position that it does not control the remittance details. Finally, Richland asserts that the essence of the remittance reference does not alter the validity of the transactions, which were approved by RHB upon Fujikura's authorisation, underscoring that there was no deliberate oversight by Richland. [56] After carefully reviewing the issue of whether Richland turned a blind eye to the obvious discrepancies in the first remittance form stating “Goods Payment” and a non- existent invoice, the court has assessed both parties' arguments. Having looked at all the evidence and submission the court decides in favour of Richland. [57] When Richland was given the remittance application form for the first remittance Richland response to the discrepancy by advising Ng to state in future that the remittance was for “entertainment” or “Ng Seang Heng” was reasonable. DW1’s evidence was that the form was prepared by the remitter and it would be up to Fujikura, not Ng, to decide the reference which it wishes to put and whatever reference which Fujikura put as reference which was beyond Richland’s control. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [58] In this sense Richland did not ignore the discrepancies of the first remittance application form. The discrepancies were brought to the attention of Ng Seng Heng which was subsequently rectified in the second and third remittance application forms. Upon receiving subsequent remittance application forms, Richland was reasonable in thinking that everything was in order due to Ng’s ability to cause Fujikura to rectify the subsequent forms. [59] Another factor to be considered is that the first remittance had already occurred at 11.31 am on 11.9.2020. Ng via whatsapp forwarded an image of the first remittance application form to Richland after the remittance. This remittance was done after RHB called Fujikura and spoken to Ms Puah of Fujikura at 11:29 am to confirm the remittance transaction pursuant to this remittance application form. Then, later in the evening Ng handed Richland the original copy of the remittance application form at Genting’s casino for the opening of Ng’s Casino Rebate Programme account and registering him as a player at or around 9.33 pm. At the point of opening Ng’s account, it is reasonable for Richland to accept that everything was in order as the remittance would have only occurred after RHB has approved the transaction upon receiving the required approvals from Fujikura. A bank such as RHB would have even more stringent approval procedures and it is reasonable for Richland to expect that such a large transaction would have required approval from the remitter, via Ms Puah’s confirmation. S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 Dissipation [60] RHB contended that Richland swiftly transferred RM1.6 million from its account to put the moneys it received from RHB out of reach after becoming aware of the fraud and attempt to recall the moneys from its account. DW1 was notified of the fraud around noon on 23.9.2020 when she received a call from Maybank notifying of RHB’s request to recall the remittances of RM1,031,000.00 due to fraud and 2 hours later, at 2:09 pm on the same afternoon, Richland deposited a house cheque drawn on its Maybank account for RM1.6 million in favour of Genting Malaysia Berhad (“Genting”). According to RHB, as Richland’s Account was left with only RM2,806.32, RHB’s attempt to recall the sum of RM1,031,000 unsuccessful due to insufficient funds. [61] Richland submits that the allegations by RHB, claiming Richland's swift action to put moneys out of reach upon notification of fraud, are unfounded and do not demonstrate bad faith. It is maintained by Richland that the funds received from Fujikura through three remittance transactions were indeed paid to Genting, a separate entity not controlled by Richland. Richland contends that the timing of these payments, made on 15.9.2020 and 23.9.2020, does not negate the fact that the moneys were owed to Genting for non-negotiable gaming chips supplied to Ng. Furthermore, Richland’s financial activities, as evidenced in its Maybank statement for September 2020, show continued business transactions post these dates, S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 contradicting RHB's assertion of bad faith. Richland also emphasises that the inability of RHB to recall the funds was due to a police report lodged by Richland, as evidenced in the police report dated 24.9.2020, and not due to any dissipative actions by Richland. [62] When the argument of dissipation is raised, the court will need to consider first of all, how this “dissipation” would benefit Richland. [63] The moneys which Richland received from Fujikura through the three remittance transactions were paid to Genting. This was not disputed. Genting is not a corporation owned or controlled by Richland. Here it can be seen that the transfer of moneys out of Richland’s account did not benefit Richland. [64] RHB suggests that there was no reason to pay a sum of RM1.6million to Genting when only 8 days earlier, on 15.9.2020, Richland had already paid a sum of RM2.8 million to Genting and there is no evidence that such a sum was due to Genting on 23.9.2020. However, by the same token, the moneys received by Richland from Fujikura through the three remittance transactions must eventually be paid to Genting to account for the non-negotiable gaming chips that were paid by Richland to Ng. For RHB’s argument of dissipation to work, RHB must show that Richland actually wanted to put the moneys out of reach of RHB and not due to another reason. In my view, Richland’s S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 payment of RM1.6 million to Genting on 23.9.2020 at 2:09 pm were payments that had to be eventually be paid to Genting to account for the non-negotiable gaming chips were paid by Richland to Ng earlier. This was only the act of a business that was keeping on top of its payments to creditors, even when not due. Richland's payments to Genting on 15.9.2020 and 23.9.2020 are indicative of normal business transactions and do not in themselves imply any act of bad faith or an attempt to evade the consequences of the alleged fraud. [65] RHB’s submission is that RHB’s attempt to recall the sum of RM1,031,000 was unsuccessful due to insufficient funds as Richland’s Account was left with only RM2,806.32. However, no evidence was led on this point by RHB. The only evidence from PW2 was found in Q&A No. 8: “Q: What did RHB do after that? A: On 22.9.2020 itself, we immediately attempted to recall the 3 remittances that were made to Richland’s Account. This was however not successful. RHB subsequently paid the sum of RM1,031,000 to Fujikura being the total amount of the 3 remittances that were remitted from Fujikura’s Account without their mandate.” [66] Nothing was ascribed to the recall being unsuccessful due to insufficient funds. No particulars were also given as to how this “attempt to recall” were made. Also, if the only “attempt to recall” was made on 22.9.2020 but the payment to Genting by Richland was made on 23.9.2020, then surely S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 the unsuccessful attempt on 22.9.2020 was not due to the payment out of Richland’s account on 23.9.2020. [67] Richland submitted that RHB was unable to recall the moneys remitted by Fujikura to Richland because a police report was lodged on 24.9.2020 at 1.49 am by Richland to bar RHB from recalling the said moneys remitted by Fujikura. This can be accepted as a possible reason why the transfers cannot be recalled. This action by Richland, rather than pointing to bad faith, appears to be a protective measure in response to what was perceived as an unwarranted claim of fraud. [68] Upon examination of Richland’s bank statements from 23.9.2020 I find that even after 23.9.2020, Richland was still running its business as usual and receiving payments from its other customers. Right up to 30.9.2020 there was a balance of RM1,029,486.22. There was no attempt by Richland to put these subsequent moneys out of reach of RHB. The bank statement demonstrates that Richland continued its usual business activities, receiving payments from various customers, which undermines the claim that Richland acted swiftly to put the funds out of reach. [69] Based on the above, I cannot accept that RHB’s attempt to recall failed due to insufficient funds as this was not conclusively proved by RHB. Therefore, RHB’s contention that Richland dissipated funds from its account to put the moneys it received from RHB out of reach after becoming S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 aware of the fraud and after RHB’s attempt to recall the moneys from Richland’s account fails. Moneys had and received [70] RHB submits that Richland is liable for the claim of money had and received, as it received funds under circumstances that, in both natural justice and equity, necessitate a refund. It is maintained by RHB that, drawing on precedents such as the Affin Bank v MMJ Exchange case, funds received by one party that rightfully belong to another, especially under circumstances not intended by the payer, should be recoverable as money had and received. RHB contends that, in this case, Fujikura never intended to remit any money to Richland, as evidenced by the absence of any dealings or knowledge between Fujikura and Richland. Furthermore, RHB argues that the overall conduct of Richland, which includes ignoring discrepancies in remittance forms and failing to inquire about the source of funds, demonstrates a lack of bona fide dealings, thus necessitating a refund. In essence, since neither Fujikura nor RHB intended for Richland to retain and use the funds, which were not rightfully itss, Richland must return the monies to Fujikura or RHB. [71] Richland submits that the issue concerning its liability to refund RM1,031,000.00, premised on money had and received, is unfounded. It is maintained by Richland that the principles of money had and received, as illustrated in S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 cases like Bank Bumiputra (M) Sdn Bhd v Hasbudin Bin Hashim, do not apply in this context. Richland contends that the remittances made by Fujikura were for services rendered in facilitating Ng's participation in Genting’s Casino Rebate Programme, which is a legitimate business transaction. Furthermore, Richland asserts that the commission earned from these transactions was nominal, amounting to RM1,043.50, which does not constitute unjust enrichment at RHB's expense. Therefore, Richland argues that natural justice and equity do not necessitate a refund of the sum in question. [72] Having duly considered the submissions of both RHB and Richland, the court is now poised to deliver its findings on the pertinent issues in dispute. [73] The evidence presented by Richland establishes that the transactions were part of a legitimate business arrangement involving the provision of junket services in Genting’s Casino Rebate Programme. Richland’s testimony (DW1) and corroborating documents, such as the remittance application forms dated 11.9.2020, 14.9.2020, and 18.9.2020 and Genting’s receipts, clearly illustrate that Ng was engaged in gambling activities facilitated by Richland. These activities were consistent with Richland's role as an operator of the Casino Rebate Programme. [74] Further, Richland's actions following the receipt of funds from Fujikura indicate compliance with standard business S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 practices rather than unjust enrichment. Richland allocated non-negotiable gaming chips to Ng equivalent to the remitted sums, as evidenced by Richland’s record card acknowledged by Ng. Richland subsequently transferred the equivalent sums to Genting to account for these chips, as confirmed by Richland’s Maybank statements and PW2’s testimony, where transactions totaling RM1.6 million were made to Genting on 15.9.2020 and 23.9.2020. [75] Richland’s commission from these transactions amounted to only 0.1% (RM1,043.50), as noted in DW1’s testimony and supported by documents, underscoring the absence of any significant financial gain that could be construed as unjust enrichment. [76] Moreover, Richland’s swift response to the notification of fraud by RHB, as evidenced by the police report lodged on 24.9.2020 at 1.49 am, demonstrates its good faith and lack of involvement in any fraudulent activity. [77] In light of these factors and guided by the principles laid out in Bank Bumiputra (M) Sdn Bhd v Hasbudin Bin Hashim and Ambank (M) Bhd v KB Leisure (M) Sdn Bhd, this court finds that Richland did not receive RHB’s money under circumstances that would necessitate a refund. RHB’s claim that Richland was unjustly enriched is not supported by the evidence. Thus, Richland’s actions were within the scope of its legitimate business operations, and no grounds exist for S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 RHB to recover the said sum on the basis of money had and received. [78] RHB also contended that there were ‘red flags’ to put Richland on inquiry. Therefore, it argued that the conduct of Richland from turning a blind eye to the source of the moneys, ignoring the discrepancies in the first remittance form, advising to correct the discrepancies in future to putting the moneys out of reach upon knowing of the fraud show that natural justice and equity would require a refund for money had and received by Richland. [79] I have rejected in respect of RHB’s contention on Richland being put on inquiry and dissipation above. The same findings will apply here. I therefore do not accept RHB’s submissions that natural justice and equity would require a refund for money had and received by Richland as Richland turned a blind eye to the ‘red flags’. Conclusion [80] After careful consideration of the facts and legal principles, the court dismissed RHB's claim to recover the RM1,031,000 that was mistakenly remitted to Richland. The court found that although RHB made the payments under a mistake based on forged documents, Richland was able to establish the defence of change of position in good faith. Specifically, Richland showed that it provided gaming chips to Ng in exchange for the funds received, consistent with its S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 legitimate business activities, and subsequently accounted for those funds to Genting. As such, Richland was not unjustly enriched. The court concluded that requiring Richland to refund the monies to RHB would be inequitable under the circumstances. Thus, RHB failed to prove entitlement to restitution. [81] The court orders that costs of RM15,000.00 is paid by RHB to Richland subject to the allocator fees. 19 December 2023 ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD Judge Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) Counsel: For the Plaintiff: Sean Yeow, Andrea Chew & Juliana Lee (Messrs Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill) For the Defendant: Daryl Kong (Messrs Edwin Lim & Suren) S/N 9BSTWmkXJka8rCAoB2kReA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BL-A52NCC-3-01/2023

PLAINTIF AF SOLUTION SDN BHD DEFENDAN IVORY GLOVE SDN BHD

Ini adalah satu rayuan yang difailkan oleh Defendan terhadap satu keputusan Mahkamah yang telah membenarkan Notis Permohonan Plaintif (Lampiran 7) untuk satu Penghakiman Terus di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM). Di dalam Lampiran 7 tersebut, Plaintif telah memohon relif-relif seperti berikut:-“1) Bahawa Plaintif diberikan kebebasan untuk memasukkan Penghakiman Terus di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 terhadap Defendan bagi :-(a) Jumlah hutang sebanyak RM161,500-00 yang kena dibayar dalam masa 7 hari dari tarikh Penghakiman ini;(b) Faedah pada kadar 1.5% sebulan ke atas jumlah RM161,600-00 dikira dari tarikh pemfailan Writ Saman ini sehingga penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad;(c) kos permohonan ini ditanggung oleh Defendan; dan (d) Lain-lain relif yang Mahkamah ini fikirkan perlu dan saksama.”

21/12/2023

Puan Hilmiah Bt Yusof

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9f929ac9-aad9-44bc-ad34-b5e71773eb6a&Inline=true

21/12/2023 09:04:33 BL-A52NCC-3-01/2023 Kand. 32 S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N yZqSn9mqvEStNLXnF3Prag **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BL—A52NCC—3—lJ1/2023 Kand. 32 2,,n/221129-04 2: an mum IIIAHKAMAH sssvsu KLANG DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN ammus KUASA SIVIL sum»: swn. no aL.A52»c 34:1/2023 mum AF smunou sou arm ....PLAlNTlF (No. SYARIKAT: 201101053504 (981639-K)) DAN IVORV GLOVE sou BHD ....DEFENDAN (ND. SYARIKAT: 202001013353 (135570:-Kl) Konuu: HILMIAN awn vusor NAKIM MAHKAMAH sssvsu SIVIL MAHKAIIIAH KLANG, SELAMGOR sw yZ0Snvm0vEs|m_xnF:aPr=q 5 mm Sum M... M“ be 05.4 m mm 0. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm ALA§;N PENGHAKIMAN [1] FENGENALAM lm adalah Sam myuan yang dufaulkan o\eh Devfendan Ramadan um keputusan Mahkamah yang lalzh msmbenarkan Mons Perrnnhunan P\ain|I1(Lamp|ran 7) nnmk saw Pengnanwnan Yerus dw hawah Nuran 14 Kaemn-Kasaan Mahkamah 2012 (Km) 0. dalam Lamwan nenem P\2inIi1 man mermhon rewelu aeperll benku| V "1! Bahawa Fiamlri clrbenkan kabebesen unzuk msmssukkan Psnghak/man Toms an bawsh Alman 14 Kaidsh-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 temudap Defendsn bagi.» an Jwnrsn Imtang sslzanyak RM151,5W-D0 yang kena dmayardalem mm 7 nan dan lankh Perwhzmman ML ([3) Faedan pads kadar 15% Saba/an kc alas jumlah RM1sv,5oooa drkira den mum psmlallan Wm Semen rm sahmgga penyelesaran penun flan mukmmad; (9) ms pulmahonan my dnarrggung om. Dslsndsn, dsm (ti) Lamaern re/fl yang Mankamsh ml nmm penu aan sakssms “ Mahkamsh xetehh memhaca dan menelm nermohonan din kenas kins: barman lermasuk kesemua Amavn-Armvn dan Hlqahan Ben plhzk P\amM dan ueqenaqn ucarmomnu yang ’ nakan, Ialah memuluskan am wmbangan kebavungkallan unluk rnambsnarkan permohonsn Plalnm dan memasukkan salu Pengnakman Terus oemaasp neaenaan dengan kos RM3D00—00 syn ,z.sn:.mzsmLxnrap~. ‘Nuns sum In-nhnv M“ be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mums dun-mm VII mum puns! havangan Plavmw. Im menuruukkan dakwaan W hanyulah salu dakwaan kosong semala-rmla Mahkamzh mg: memjuk kepada xes MULTI- punposs cnsnn snu sun v nu SRI rum‘ FADUKA (DR) TING vex KHlNG[1fllI6]5 MLJ sea ying mana melah dlpumxkan Bahama - ‘The ua/amtanrs amdavizs land to “oonuescond upon pamcu/an" (p9rLon1 Blackburn m wamngmn v Muruur socvery 91.790) 5 App cas 555 at 9 704, HLI g»/gm Q ;[ mm m; gssmons Mu as/anaam must be dsemed to have not ‘cundascend ugh gamcu/am" and (ms mam maz moss avarmsms mus! be construed as msrs ban gggmg mg [mg sfigufl m mnug msgaruad ' Olen yang uamman. dzlam hal mi, Mahkamah bersetum dengan hujzhzn Plainw hahawa Defiendan hanya memharlaknkan saw Isu yanfl remeh-temeh dan sanya um pemlknran nemamuman (‘aflellhoughfl yang dlreka umuk mangellruknn Mahkamah 3 Bsrkenaan dengnn Isu mammanan melanggzr kumrak dzn Defendan mengnlaml kamglan, Mahkamah ,uga melldapam any. max dlsukung dengan sebarzng mum din man hernia: Im kelana Delsnflan sekwznya berm Defendin wan mengalaml ueuugmn, Delendan sepamxnya membenkan aman kevugun yang dmyzlakan bavkenaan dun bukan hanyz sekadav rnanyehumya sana.a di aw Delendan man a balzngan herkenaan man mm 2 (Ihun yang Ia\u din Delendan msmpunya. lamvuh mass yang mencukupl unmk memhum mama kvaan kerugun tsakurang-kurangnya anggarzn kevugnan) yang mananu seknranya Ia benar ace 11 am yzoinwuwtstmxnrawrwn -ma Sum In-nhnv WW .. used a mm a. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm VII mum wrm yang dnreka unmk mengehrukan Mumman ouen yang damikwan Manknmah membual keswmpulan hahawa Delendan udak mempunyal s.n|u Isu unluk dlbiczrakan dalam kes W. Mahkamah merujuk Kepada kas amx NEGARA MALAVSIA v MOHD ISMAIL ALI JOHCIR a. ORS (19911 1 cu (Rap) 14 yang mans Mahkimnh Agung Ielah menyalakan mam benkul. » "Under 014, when a /ac! is asserted by ans parry and dsmsd by Molnar, and such demal rs equivocal ar /Bckmg in pmmon or u mmlvsiskenl with undtspulsd mmampmary documents or my statements by (he same depanen! or u mllevsntfy rmpmbable m my Ihs mg: has a duty (0 me: such axssmon oldsmat Nvsmby nandmg lhe msus as no! livable" Eerdzsavkan alasarralasan m am.‘ Mahkamah Ielah mernbenarkan permuhunan P\amI1I an Lampuan 1, seas mmangun kebzlangkallan‘ umuk mu Penghakrman Manama di bzwah Mural: 14 KKM am ipohon memherikan Sam psrlnlah sapenl Dlarvgkal unluk pemmbingsn Yang An! Hakwm Mahkamah Tlnggx 91*@~u (HILMIAH amn vusor) Halum Mzhkamah Sesyan Klang‘ Sehangnr :5 <2 2923 n sw ,z.sn:.mzsmLxmp~. -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum puns! [21 FAKTA RINGKAS 1 Fads as/osrznzc. Plamtil mbh menanma pesanan pemhelian (‘Purchase omar) dalipada Davandan malahu P 0 Na AG90/MW0151 m mana netenaan bermal unluk memheh banan-banan manenax nallu 2 mm ‘coagulant (MK, 2 mm ‘polymer tank flan 2 um ‘latex (ant? nengan harga bellan bequrmah RM3Z3,UO\rUD dnnpafla P\am|fl 2 Menunfl Purchase Order benarkh 6/5/2023 umeuua, Delandan beqanu unmk memhayav 50% dalipada harga balian sehznyzk RMl6I,5nD-OD sebagai bayaran muka (‘down payment’) manakala nan harga behan zkan dlbayar sejuvus umasa mamm mangnamar banan- bahan mananax belkenzan kapada newenaan 3 F ' m Ielzh menghamar bahavrbahan mzrnrial belkenaan kepaaa Delmldan Namun‘ selakal W Dalendan nanya membayar so-7/. narga nanan balkenaan mnnakaln om sebahagxan 50% havga bahavrbahan malerim (erssbm masm bamm diselesalkan O\eh yang amxian, ten1zpa| (Imggakan/hulang iabanyak RWELSOO-OD yang mum enggan/gagal/cual dlhiyar dan dumaskan oxen Defendan 4 Flainmtelah membuat penmntaan din mnllflan nennang km: nape-is Defendan unmk membayar Mullah oenunfliqak berkenain (ermasuk melllm Surat Tumman pesuam 7"flWN banal“! 1532012. "am" Defendan masih gagal memmawkan dan memhzyar hmang belkenaan 5 Dalandan lehh rnemnaxas sum! peguzm manm belkanaan manavm swat Delenflan benankh m as 2022 yang mana dn da\am surzt berkenzan Dalendan (idak menzfikan nan hayaran yang dnunun can hznya menyanakan bahuwa merska max mimpu wag. mamhayav nau- aw yZoSnim1vEs|m_xnFaPrwI -ma sum nu-uhnv wm he used m mm a. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm bayaran xersenuc kerana pennwnuaan sarung langan gslah man menurun 5 Ftalmwi munyavhkan nswenaan mak mempunyal Dembehan barman! dakam kes mi flan sekemsnya uaaa wsu umuk carakan KES PLAINTIF 1 nnnawenna psmnayaran unluk pevubehsn Inn felah dlvekndknn dengan walas ualam Pasanan Pembehan berlankh as as 2021 tersehul flan Iakla ml (shah makul newsman aw dalam perenggan 5 Pambelaan Dewenasn Tennexenna wm adz\ah sah dan mengwkal P\amM din newenann 2. Plimmi lelah manunawkan nbhgasl kunllakmamya dengan msngnanur semua haharvbahan material yang dvpsun kepldl Delendan pass 23 as 2021, o4.oe.2n21, we as 2021, 25 m 21:21 an m as zozw Fenghamaran ml wan dlikw men newsman an perenggan 5 Pembelaan Dsfendan 3 Selepas penenmaan bnhan—hahan makanal yang dvhantanerah berkenaan, newsman hdak rmamhzngkiflun sebaring aduln lemadip hahalvbahan mzlenal Iavsebul kspana Mann!!! 4 P\ainm menyelankan wnvmewnvon bemambor IGDOUZ flan Icunua yang benankh n2 as am dan wwazuzw kepida Defendan Immk msnunmw bayarzn nan RM151.50U-OD danpada newsman 5 Sebzgal balasan kepada surzl peguam PIIIMII menunud pembayamn nuwang bemenaan, Defendan man menuhs swat bena n 01 a9 2922 (-mun ‘SK-5') yam: mm: dalam sural nu newsman max menzfikan syn yZsfinImqvES|NLxnF:IPmg -we sum In-vwhnv WW he used m van; ne nnn.u., mm; dun-mm vn mum ma haki bayalan yang anunmn ielsebm Delendan hanya menjelaskan aklbat penumtun sarung langzn yang menuvun, mamkz mdak lagx mampu menjehskan wang yang dilumm belkenaan dan man-anon unluk menglmbangw rmvaar; ham hayann tersebul dengan bayaran yang dibua| uleh Delandan kspada syankat max Form Sun Bhd 5 Pnamciv (elah maruawab swat ueosnaan bemenaan melalm sumlnya bermrikh 01092022 D4 dalam sural ml Plamm menulak perrmmaan Datenaan umuk meubarx-n syarIka| Lalax Farm Sdn Bhd rnemandingkan kaduadun swvikal ialah enlm havasingan dan max halsh dicampumauk 7 Plamunazan membnm pemumaan flan nmlman Dermang kall kupadz Darenaan unluk memhayav jumwan (anunggak hsrkanian Iermasuk melilul Surat Tunmtan gaguam Plalnm namun Delandan masm gagnx mcnunzwkan darl membayav nmang benkenain KES DEFENDAN 1 Decenaan mengaku man beljarm membayar bakv sol-/a bahan-bahun malsnal berkenaan ieIs\ah wanya umamanseran tenakluk kepnda barangzn yang dihamar adalah menglkm desknpsx pesanan Delendan 2 Namuny barangan yang dmantsr naak bsdungm dengan baik Dslendan hdak Vagx bo\ah manohk din mengemballkan barangan mac-n Kenna a man dwpasang unluk mgunakan Defendan. 3 Ezrangan tersebul max mengwkuk flesknpsw Delendan dan Defendan (erpaksa manggunakannya kerana naranuan Ielah mambayzr ‘down payment kapada P\amM syn yZ$nIlwn\(S|NLXnFJPmn -ma sum In-nhnv mu he used m van; me m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm vn mum puns! 4 F\aInlIl belah gags! mengxkul puawman Kedalaman dalam pemhlnaan Iangka—tangki berienaan sehingga sarung vangan yang Defendan nasukan max herkuzhli. lm manysbabkan Deiandan man mangalaml kcruglan s Defurvdan man ma balknmumkzsi ucavi mu dengan Flam befhubuna uengan mm. barangan s-mm: tempt Plamm algal membenm penyelmun ALASAN KEPUIIJSAN 1 Mahkamah menaapam bemasalkan eakta4akca dan dokumew dnkumen yang dleksvbilkan P w d\ dalam Afidavn Snknngan Ierhadzp Lampvran 1 Nous Pemmhunzn unmk Pengnakmn rem, mamur |eIah benaya Imluk membma um kea puma iucnz Plalnm lelan menmukuxan melnlui Pumhase Order dan lnvms-mvms yang disksmnkan bahawa bavangzn Iersebut Ielah dlhanlarsevah dan tebh dnenma Defendan Dalam haw ml Davanuan bsnanggullmamib unmk malangsalkan bakx 50% was Dembehan yang um-mu: Ptamm um dalam kes Roman cancrm Yrudlnn Sdn Bhd v Low Chal Hing Holding sun Bhd [20:14] 1 Lu: 2:‘ Mahkamah Tinggx Ielah menyataknn sepenl beriun . - 1: I: elementary mm the dafervdnnl to whom ms goods have Men 512/11 and dam/slsd has a duty for ms goods or 5155 me vrdfnary business urcammems and mdushy vmuld result rn chaos Nance, s 31oHhe Sale aIGouds Act 1957umvl-193 mar- N yZoSnim1vEs|m_xnFaPrwI mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm ‘Its .5 the duLv olme seflerlo aerwermu 90nd: and aims ouyena accept and pay rm [Item m acoordalme mm me farms 9/ me canlram ar sale’ Dalam keadaan WU, beban pembukllan lelzh belpmflah kepadz Dalendan unmk menumukkan kapada Mahkamah bahawa Ievdapm mp wsu unluk dvbmankan ax aalam ks: ml flan mengapa Penghakxman Tews ndak senanmnya mmasuxkan a. damn kc: Im D1 dz\zm ks: Clmgikl Financu and v. Ho lai Yigg mgm .1 KN Trading 5 Anor goon 2 IIILJ us‘ Mankamah Persekuluan lelah mammuskan mama - ‘M an aparmanan under 0 w RHC me amen rs on me F/arrmlf lo astsblrsharl ms vanowmg mvvdmons. 1:) Ma! IIII dolondammust naw cm‘-nd .7. nppeulnm, no mu me mmnent of mm. must um bun urvodon tin dohndnnk; um any mu um mam: in support nmncompty with 7.2 oIa.14 RNC In um itmust «my 10! has an which an claim is baud um m-mum m. dipunlnflr tun-n».¢ mm is no dofonco on an own. Onu mos. conditions an Iulfillld, lln burdon um: um: an m dnfuvdanl no mu wink ltsues T719 Iawon (ms rs me‘ an da\am sa|u Iagi kes National Oumgnx Fur Furoigll man u Kayu Ray; Sdn Bhd mu 1 ML! 300‘ Mahkamah Pemekuman lelah memuluskan bahawa » ‘For the purpose ol sn smarmanon under Order 14 ms prenmmarv requnenuentsue tr) me defendants mus! have entered an apaeararvw rm the siatemenl omaun must have Dssn served on me dalsvvdant. and an) mo mam m support of mo applrcnban mus! comnly mm the naqmmnmnrs amure 2 guns om, n time rntvllfarlalossl armeranhass mnme . nn var uumnmdsmbonamsabsfied ms mum My mm mugm , mg mg 9;» and He beonrnoa srmlled lo u men! The human man s an N o‘ the cam rm enrsnouunome n “ nu dnlam memutuslran samaaa saxu penaharuman Cams hams ammmn alau Iuiak, Mahkamah mi lelah menquk kepada kes pnnuppnnsxp yang digaritkan o\eh Mnhd Azmu sex di dalam kn Bunk Nluiru Mulayfln v. Mona Iamau All Johor I. on [1952] 1 IIILJ ton ‘Under an o 1: apvmauon. me my arm Judw am no! and nmanasaracmasmnaaayanepavnnandaennaor dtsnuled by alharon army»: Where such an msmon, dsma! or mspuu .s lqunmcll, or lilrkmg m pmsmmlv or mmmlstent wm uudrapuzsa ounmnpomrr dammenu or other statements by Ms same deponsnr or rs nnnusnrfy mlflmbame in Men: men the Judge has a any tu mm: such assertion or denial, Meleby rsrldermg ms msuos as no! Mame In cur oplnmrv, urvllsx M nrmcwle /5 adhersd In, a Judge rs m no posmon In uxsmlse ms msmeuon ,..am.any underan o w aponcanun Thu: gar: [mu Emma; mg 1&3; gllgg grlaw me Cowl must gg one slgg In nm the! Ihe are tnable Tms rmcr mum; mmm ax mg mmngm mat a mmgere delenoe need not be shown me as M: mm .5 a manic rune - 2 Dalam xes mi, Delendan (elah mengemukakan heberapa Isu seoagzu wsu unluk dwbcarakan seven: berfkul x7 Plamm mak rnanghzmarserzh barzngan seem selams dengan pesanan Defandan. Baringan nemmu lldak menepan mawaian dzn mulu yang dupesan oleh Defiendan‘ my Delendan tarpaksa rlweruggunakan bzrangan havkenaan kerzna wanyz Celah siap dvpasang aan nevenaan wga man membayav senanm dan narganya. Akmumya suruna langan umasukan max bukualm am Dersuaan man mermmsml kemglan DAFATAN MAHKAMAH 1 Earkenaan Isu havangzn yang dmantar serah max menepau pesanan Defendan dari sag! mwauannya, Mahkamah meuuapau mya my- mu p9lVIbe\aIn xosons yang \i-nnuuxkan umuk mengellrukan Mahkamnh lm kerana segamang masa urusan beI1a\an anlira mereka. Defendan max pemzh malzparkan din msrnbangkilkan \sIH5u VN lermasuk .1. dalam Burst nwapan neaenuan benavikh moezuzz hkalhll ' K-5"). Saklrunyl henar levdapal nu xualm flan xemakpauman pmwzian barangan, sudzh Ienlu mnyz akan dlbangkrlkan an dahm sural ilu. sanauknya, Delendan hanya memexaskan axmac permmvaan sanmg (angan yang menurun, mareka lldak lam mampu nnnlelaskan wang yang auumux bevkenaan Gan memohon umuk mengunhangw (-oerserry bakl bayaran tevsebm dengan bayaran yang dIbua| uleh Defendan kepada make: Lmsx Farm Sdn Ehd sw yZoSnwu1vEs|m_xnF:aPrwn we Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm we nvVmruH|y mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Nahkamah merujuk kepadn kes SYARIKAT PAKAR KAVIJ DAN PERDAGANGAN sun man v MAA-SK sou EHD [1535] cu (Rnp) 594 ‘M seem: strings Nut .1 mass damned pamculars were ave»/able wmy (hey we not muugn: to ma nlfslmon ol me plamlrffs samsr, wny complaints was mat made eaflier and my EVE" when (Ms Dlamwfx snhmovs wmoe demandmfl payment we particulars was not Draught to mm saftcrtars‘ auennon - ‘tin fnvslulbll cm:-men wu mu m. wmplnim: M: . alum ma mmmmmm summnz nldvloncn Iliad not an nnmvmn reply on the may 1: pmmu any wally nuonam. dchnct Mo bun: Mu mm. lasun mu been ruined." Mahkamah was mendlpah dakwaan bahawa P\amM man when bwkomunlkasl secara hsan dengan mamm adzxan wga salu pamlkwran semula memandangkan Deferldan msmpunyav peluang penuh unluk manyaiakzn pevkzra Im seczri beam .1. dahm suval nkslbit “sm“ 2 Mahkamah mga mandzpalv Ianya uanysxan sam penafizn kcmng sahqa memarvdangkan Defeman max membenkan apaiva hum unluk menunjukkan perkara ml Mahkamah belselugu dengsn huphan Plalnlli bahawa sekiranya Deiendan mendapiu barangan berkenaan max dnpzl befiungsl dengan bank, sepihflnya Deiendan memmangkan harangan uembm kepada Plamlvf dun bukan |erus mengglmakannya Dalendzn ‘uga ndak manyilakan apakan barangan yang dikatakan hdak berkuamv dan gagal menepan plawaen secam was Tlada dokumun menwuukkan apakah mavwixan yang sepalmnya dwenuhu Plamm dlseliakan dalam Afinawl Jawapan Defhndan Devenaan ma uaak merqelaskan dengan Vahih many apakah kecauxan yang ada paaz m N yZqSnirwnvES|NLXnFJPr:g Nuns sum ...n... WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum puns!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

AC-83-268-05/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MUHAMMAD ZULHAKIMI HUSAINI BIN ZULKIFLI

Identification Parade, Failure to identify accused, uncorroborated evidence, sexual assault, dock identification, Turnbull Requirement,

21/12/2023

Puan Ashvinii a/p Thinakaran

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f6274cf7-0531-4e6a-9b39-fb6a24d8a4b7&Inline=true

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF TELUK INTAN IN THE STATE OF PERAK [CASE NO: AC-83-268-05/2022] PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. MUHAMMAD ZULHAKIMI HUSAINI BIN ZULKIFLI (B1) (IC No: 020910-07-0859) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Muhammad Zulhakimi Husaini Bin Zulkifli, the Accused person, appeared before this court to answer a charge under section 354 of the Penal Code, which reads: “Bahawa kamu, pada 15/05/2022 jam lebih kurang 10.40 malam bertempat di alamat Batu 4, Jalan Maharajalela, 36000 Teluk Inta Perak, di Daerah Hilir Perak, di dalam Negeri Perak, telah menggunakan kekerasan jenayah kepada Nama: XXXX (KPT XXXX) dengan maksud untuk mencabul kehormatannya dengan cara meramas buah dada, dan dengan itu, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 354 Kanun Keseksaan.” 1.2 This court held, Prosecution failed to prove a Prima Facie case and Acquitted and Discharged the Accused Person without calling for Defence. Prosecution dissatisfied with the decision has filed an appeal to the High Court. Below are my grounds. 2. ACCUSED PERSON PLEA OF NOT GUILTY 2.1 Accused person was charged in Court on 25.5.2022. Charge was read and explained in Malay. Accused person understood the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Trial commenced on 27.6.2023. Prosecution closed their case on 2.10.2023. Upon deliberating and convinced I delivered my decision on 7.11.2023. The Court held, Prosecution had failed to prove Prima Facie case. Thus, the Accused person was Acquitted and Discharged without calling for Defence. 3. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION 3.1 Four witnesses were called to the stand by the Prosecution. i. SP1: The Complainant/ The Victim ii. SP2: Arresting Officer iii. SP3: Investigating Officer 21/12/2023 15:32:20 AC-83-268-05/2022 Kand. 36 S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal iv. SP4: Identification Parade Officer 3.2 At the material time, SP1 was alone on her way back home from work at about 10.40pm. She was riding a motorbike along Taman Ros when she realized another motorbike was tailgating her, but was not worried. However, as she reached the corner of Batu 5, near Taisan the said motorbike got closer to the victim’s motorbike. Out of fear she accelerated, only for the other motorbike to accelerate, until it reached up to her and was on the left side of the victim. The rider then still on his motorbike, reached out his hand and groped the left side of the victim’s breast and rode off after making a U-turn. 3.3 Upon reaching home, the victim had informed her father of the incident, who later tried searching for the perpetrator for about 30 mins before going to the police station with the victim to make a police report. On the same day, SP3 had recorded the victim’s statement. 3.4 7 days later, on 22.5.2023 SP2 had arrested the Accused person based on his previous records. And on the same day, SP3 had instructed SP4 to conduct an Identification Parade. During which, the victim had identified the Accused as the Perpetrator. 3 days later he was charged in this court for an offence under Section 354 Penal Code. 4. SECTION 354 OF THE PENAL CODE 4.1 S. 354 of the Penal Code reads: 354. Assault or use of criminal force to a person with intent to outrage modesty Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or with fine or with whipping or with any two of such punishments. 4.2 In the recent case of PP v. Kamarul Azamin Mohamad & Another Appeal [2021] 2 CLJ 386; [2021] 8 MLJ 502, His Lordship Aslam Zainuddin, JC, in discussing the elements of the offence under s. 354 of the Penal Code, referred to an excerpt from Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes, 28th edn., 2018: [15] The ingredients of the offence are: (i) there must have been assault or use of criminal force on a person; (ii) such assault or use of criminal force must have been made: (a) with intention to outrage modesty; or (b) with knowledge that the person's modesty was likely to be outraged. [16] Therefore it must be proven that: (i) the accused assaulted or used criminal force on the victim; and (ii) that he intended thereby to outrage the victim's modesty; or that he knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage victim's modesty. S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (see Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes, 28th edn., 2018, vol. 2, pp. 2411 and 2418). 4.3 S. 349 of the Penal Code defines "force": A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling. 4.4 S. 350 of the same code defines "criminal force": Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to cause the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force illegally to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear, or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. 4.5 While s. 351 of the code defines "assault": Whoever makes any gesture or any preparation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. 5. THE COURT’S DUTY AT THE END OF PROSECUTION STAGE 5.1 At the close of the prosecution's case, the court comes under a duty to subject the evidence to maximum evaluation in order to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the accused which requires him to enter his defence. See the decisions of the apex court in PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 and Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85. 5.2 A prima facie case is established where the prosecution has adduced such evidence of the essential elements of the charge as are sufficient to convict the accused, if he were to keep silent, and the evidence is left unexplained or unrebutted. 5.3 The court's duty was expressed by the Court of Appeal in Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP [2003] 1 CLJ 734; [2003] 2 MLJ 65 in the following manner: "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." S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6. COURT’S EVALUATION AT THE END OF PROSECUTION STAGE 6.1 To make out its case against the accused, the prosecution had to establish: (i) the accused used criminal force on the victim; and (ii) that he intended thereby to outrage the victim's modesty; 6.2 However before elaborating on the 2 elements above, there is one other pertinent issue to highlight. Identification of the perpetrator. The prosecution’s evidence on identifying the perpetrator is as below: a) The victim in her statement had testified that there were wording on the motorbike of the pruportrator written ‘RAPSOL’ and that the motorbike was orange in colour. She then identified the said motorbike via 4 pictures marked as P2 (A -D). b) Albeit the DPP’s question was leading, the victim had testified that the perpetrator was wearing a white T-shirt with a horse logo on the left handside of the T-shirt. She then continued to identify the T-shirt via 3 pictures marked as P3(A – C). She had also testified that there was no one else on the road but the two of them. c) About 7 days later, an Identification Parade was held by SP4. 11 men of the same race were lined up during the parade, during which the victim had identified the Accused (no.10) as her perpetrator. 6.3 Prosecution’s submission heavily focused on these evidences to prove that the victim had successfully identified the accused as her perpetrator. 6.4 However, the defence had put forth several material doubts on the victim’s identification as below: a) At the material time, the victim during cross-examination had testified that her speed was 90/100 km per hour which is faster than reasonable speed. On top of that, the victim also testified that the place was dark and the incident happened in less than 10 seconds. b) Apart from that, the victim had also agreed that perpetrator was wearing his helmet with the visor on. This would severely discount the victim’s identification under all these circumstances. How can one identify someone through a visor obscuring most of his face, in a dark alley, while riding a motorbike during an incident that happened in less than 10 seconds? She later tried to remedy her answer during re-examination by saying the visor was open which clearly is an after-thought. c) The victim later went on to agree with the defence that she was unsure of the perpetrator’s race and that she does not actually know who the pruportrator is. She also agreed that her identification of the accused motorbike was merely based on the ‘RAPSOL’ wording and that she has no other way to identify that this was the very motorbike that the perpetrator had rode on. She also agreed that there are many such motorbikes of the same wording in the market. d) At the end of cross-examination, the victim also agreed she had only identified the white shirt which the perpetrator had worn because P3(A – C) was shown to her by the previous Deputy Public Prosecutor conducting this case the morning before the trial. S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Even during re-examination, the victim had testified that she was not sure of the horse logo on the T-shirt. e) Apart from that, SP4 during cross-examination had agreed that the identification parade was not done accordingly given the line up was no where close to that of the Accused. The accused person in this case was 19 years old, however the line up in the identification parade consists of people of various ages ranging from 23 years old to 41 years old, despite the report (P16) stating they are all of the same age. SP4 also knew that the victim was unsure of the perpetrator’s race. So how did SP4 end up with only Malay men in their Identification Parade. SP4 also failed to confirm if the height and weight of the men in the line up matched up to that of the Accused. Her answers to most questions was ‘TIDAK PASTI’. SP4 had also erred in writing the wrong report number and failed to remedy her mistake by making a police report. 6.5 This court helds that under the circumstances above, while the court is well aware that there is no corroboration needed in most sexual cases, in this case the victim’s identification is not safe given she herself was not sure of the perpetrator, of his bike, of his rase, of the T-shirt he was wearing. There was nothing distinct in the victim’s statement to identify that the perpetrator was indeed the accused person. P16 was also of no help given there were many irregularities from the wrong report number, to the non-similarity of the line up of the Idenitifcation Parade to the accused person. Another crucial point to be highlighted is the unethical behavior of the previous Deputy Public Prosecutor conducting this case who showed pictures of material evidence to the victim and coached the victim prior to the trial. This had caused the Court to doubt the victim’s credibility and her statement if the entirety of her statement is based on what was trully happened and the trauma endured by the victim or based on what was tutored by the said Deputy Public Prosecutor? 6.2 This court refers to the case of Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v. Public Prosecutor & Another Appeal [2004] 3 CLJ 737; [2004] 3 MLJ 405. Where, the Federal Court held that: " In a sexual offence, the essential ingredients are the sexual act and the identity of the offender. The date is not a vital ingredient of the charge". 6.3 The first element to be proved by the Prosecution was that the accused had used criminal force on the victim. The Court finds that this element has not been proved by the Prosecution due to the victim’s failure in identifying her perpetrator. Although there are no questions that the incident did take place and that criminal force was indeed used on the victim via her testimony where she was certain an unidentified man on a motorbike had reached out and groped her left breast before making a U-turn and riding off. Her statement was also corroborated by her police report marked as P1. “Kejadian itu berlaku sewaktu saya pulang bekerja dalam pukul 10.40 macam tu. Saya perasan ada sebuah motosikal mengekori saya di belakang. Saya melalui jalan di Taman Ros. Sewaktu tu saya tak mengesyaki apa-apa, tetapi setibanya saya di selekoh Batu 5 dekat Taisan saya perhatikan motor tersebut mengekori rapat motor saya. Saya berasa tak sedap hati. Saya bawak motor saya melajukan kenderaan saya. Motor tersebut juga melajukan kenderaan dia lalu rapat ke motor saya. Saya waktu tu berada S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal di sebelah kanan dan dia di sebelah kiri. Kemudian tangannya pegang dada belah kiri saya. Lepastu saya meneruskan perjalanan dan toleh kebelakang tengok dia dah U-turn, U- turn ke belakang.” 6.4 This evidence was also not disputed nor attacked by the Defence which requires the Prosecution to remedy. Thus, the Court accepts part of the victim’s testimony where the incident did take place however, it was the identity of the perpetrator that the victim had failed to identify. Hence, the question that remains to be answered is was it the accused who had used criminal force on the victim by groping her left breast? 6.5 And again, the credibility of the victim was seriously challenged. Her failure to identify the accused in her police report in particular was emphasised by learned counsel for the accused as suggesting that she was not divulging the truth about the incident, the perpetrator and also the Indentification Parade. In the circumstances, the defence submitted that the prosecution has clearly failed to prove a prima facie case against the accused person such that they must accordingly be discharged and acquitted at this stage. 6.6 At this juncture, the Prosecution had heavily relied on the Identification Parade Report insisting that the victim had successfully identified the accused. It should further be reiterated that although evidence of identification parade is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act 1950, there is under the law no legal requirement for an identification parade to be held in order to secure a conviction. Thus Abdul Malik Ishak JC (as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v. Sarjeet Singh [1994] 3 CLJ 95; [1994] 2 MLJ 290 said:- "In my judgment, the necessity of holding an identification parade can only arise where the accused persons are not previously known to the witnesses (see Mehtab Singh &Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2). It follows, therefore, that where the accused persons are already known to the witnesses, the question of identification parade does not arise. Here, there was no evidence that the taxi driver knew the trio prior to the robbery. Therefore, the police should have conducted an identification parade and the failure to organize one gives rise to the lurking suspicion that if conducted, the taxi driver could not identify the trio. Non-holding of the test identification parade, though it may not be a ground to vitiate the trial, is undoubtedly a very important feature in considering the credibility of the witnesses on the point of identification (see Lajja Ram v. Stat e 3 and Awadh Singh v. Stat e 4). 6.7 And further clarification was found in the judgment of Augustine Paul J (as he then was) in Jaafar bin Ali v. Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 CLJ 410; [1998] 4 MLJ 406 where it was stated in the following terms:- "On the instances when an identification parade is required, Andrews & Hirst say this at p 321: It is necessary to distinguish between cases in which the accuracy of a purported identification is in issue, and cases in which the only issue is whether identifying witnesses are lying. In the former kind of case, much will S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal turn upon the reliability or pre-trial identification, and a failure to follow proper procedures in respect of such identification may well lead to the court or judge excluding the evidence concerning it. It will also be essential, in most cases, for the judge to direct the jury on the dangers of mistaken identification, in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Court of Appeal in R v. Turnbull [1976] 3 All ER 549. Where, in contrast, the veracity of the witness is the only issue, it will not generally be either necessary or appropriate for the identification parade to be held or for a Turnbull direction to be given. 6.8 Thus, in R v. Courtnell [1990] Crim LR 115 (distd), the appellant was identified by a publican as the man who had robbed him of his takings. There was no identification parade; at a confrontation the publican claimed to recognize him as a regular customer over the previous week; the appellant alleged in reply that he was being 'stitched up', and subsequently ran a defence alleging that the case against him was a total fabrication. He was convicted, and appealed on the ground that no Turnbull direction had been given at the trial but the Court of Appeal held that none was required. In R v. Cape [1996] 1 Cr App Rep 191 (distd), it was held that in a case where the witness knew the accused well and the latter's sole defence was one of malicious fabrication by the witness no useful purpose could have been served by the giving of a Turnbull warning. When the accused is caught red-handed, there is no need for an identification parade (see Ho Yew Cheng v. R [1962] 1 LNS 54; [1962] MLJ 437 (distd)). The evidence of identification parade is admissible under s. 9 of the Evidence Act 1950 (see ST Shinde v. State of Maharashtra AIR [1974] SC 791 (refd))". 6.9 Sailing back to the case before this Court, I find that there are severe non-compliance of the Turnbull Guidelines. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution's case centered around the victim’s evidence as she witnessed the perpetrator and subsequently identified him during the Identification Parade. However, she has since agreed with the Defence suggestion that she in fact could not identify the accused and there was no other evidence to implicate the accused. 6.10 Another important issue to highlight is that the identification parade was not only held 7 days after the attack, but there were a lot of irregularities in conducting the identification parade. The attack in itself took place in a dark environment, took less than 10 seconds where both the victim and the perpetrator were on their respective motorbike riding at about 100 kilometer per hour, with the perpetrator wearing his helmet with the visor closed. 6.11 It is trite that evidence of identification should be approached with caution. The reliability of the identification evidence depends on a non-exhaustive list of factors such as the length of time that the witness observed the accused, the distance at which the observation was made, the presence of obstructions in the way of the observation, the presence of special reasons for the witness to remember the accused etc. (See R v. Turnbull & Ors [1976] 3 All ER 549, Heng Aik Ren Thomas v. PP [1998] 3 SLR 465). 6.12 Hence, The court finds that the victim’s identification of the accused is not safe and there is no enough evidence to prove this element, whether corroborated or not. S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6.13 The second element to prove is the intention of the accused to outrage the modesty of the victim. This court refers to the case of PP lwn. Gokul Pariyar [2021] 1 LNS 1155, where High Court held – "[35] Mahkamah ini sedar perkataan "modesty" di bawah s. 354 Kanun itu tidak diberikan takrifan oleh Badan Parlimen. Sehubungan itu ia bergantung kepada sesuatu fakta kes yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pendawaan. Mahkamah ini merujuk kes Mahkamah India iaitu kes State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR [1967] SC 63, di mana AK Sarkar CJ berkata di halaman 65: "Intention and knowledge are of course states of mind. They are nonetheless facts which can be proved. They cannot be proved by direct evidence. They have to be inferred from the circumstances of each case. Such an inference, one way or the other, can only be made if a reasonable man would, on the facts of the case, make it. The question in each case must, in my opinion, be: will a reasonable man think that the act was done with the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman or with knowledge that it was likely to do so? The test of the outrage of modesty must, therefore, be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. In considering the question, he must imagine the woman to be a reasonable woman and keep in view all circumstances concerning her, such as, her station and way of life and the known notions of modesty of such a woman. The expression 'outrage her modesty' must be read with the words 'intending to or knowing it to be likely that he will'. So read, it would appear that though the modesty to be considered is of the woman concerned, the word 'her' was not used to indicate her reaction. Read all together, the words indicate an act done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to outrage the woman's modesty, the emphasis being on the intention and knowledge." 6.14 The Prosecution in their submission relied on the case of Pendakwa Raya lwn Syed Fairus bin Syed A Bakar [2023] MLJU 794, where the Magistrate had use a ‘resonable test’ to prove the intention of outraging modesty: “[20] Bahagian punggung mahupun peha merupakan bahagian badan yang tiada sentuhan patut dilakukan ke atas wanita bukan muhrim. Tubuh badan wanita melambangkan kehormatan wanita dan sensitif bagi manamana wanita di budaya negara ini. [21] Merujuk kepada kes Zulkifli Hashim V PP [2017] 1 LNS 1768 dimana Mahkamah merujuk kes dalam kes State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR [1967] SC 63 di mana ‘reasonable test’ terpakai untuk menunjukkan niat cabul. Mahkamah menyatakan: “Intention and knowledge are of course states of mind... They have to be inferred from the circumstances of each case. Such an inference, one way or the other, can only be made if a reasonable man would, on the facts of the case, make it. The question in each case must, in my opinion, be: will a reasonable man think that the act was done with S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman or with knowledge that it was likely to do so? The test of the outrage of modesty must, therefore, be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of the offender was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the modesty of the woman. In considering the question, he must imagine the woman to be a reasonable woman and keep in view all circumstances concerning her, such as, her station and way of life and the known notions of modesty of such a woman... Read all together, the words indicate an act done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to outrage the woman’s modesty, the emphasis being on the intention and knowledge.” 6.15 The prosecution further submitted that the action of groping the victim’s left breast alone is enough to prove the intention to outrage the victim’s modesty as such action will not be considered a reasonable action by anyone to this day and age. In addition, the purortrator had after groping the victim’s left breast, made a U-turn and rode off proving that he knew what he did was wrong and immoral thus not reasonable. However, the same question from above still remains if it was the accused person who had the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim? 6.16 As highlighted above, it is clear that the victim had failed to identify her perpetrator and thus the prosecution failed to prove the second element. 7. CONCLUSION 7.1 Of many authorities, I wish to refer to two cases. Firstly, the locus classicus by Suffian J (later LP) in Mat v. PP [1963] 1 LNS 82; [1963] MLJ 263: The correct law for Magistrates to apply is as follows. 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 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7.2 Second, the case of Pendakwa Raya v. Michael Dennis Mcauliffe [1991] 3 CLJ 2819, where Abdul Hamid Mohamed JC (later CJ) was urged to consider the accused person's defence which stated his belief that powders found in his possession to be something aphrodisiac. His Lordship observed: [5] Mesti dipertimbangkan sama ada cerita tertuduh bahawa serbuk tersebut adalah "aphrodisiac" adalah cerita berkemungkinan. Tidak mengapa jika cerita itu tidak benar sekalipun. Jika cerita itu berkemungkinan pun, sudah memadai untuk tertuduh dibebaskan dan dilepaskan. 7.3 To sum up, based on the foregoing facts and the legal analysis, I am of the view that the victim’s version that the groping of her left breast might have happened, however without proper iditification of the perpetrator and the existence of overwhelming evidence to suggest the victim’s testimony may have been concocted when identifying the perpetrator, his motorbike, his shirt and even during the Identification Parade against the accused person, to be probable hence raising reasonable doubts. 7.4 At the risk of repetition, the facts in the present case share many resemblances as in the cases above, and it follows that this court is guided to make a similar order. The accused is acquitted and discharged. Dated: 20th December 2023 (ASHVINII THINAKARAN) Magistrate Teluk Intan Magistrate Court Perak Darul ridzuan S/N 90wn9jEFak6bOftqJNiktw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-23NCvC-62-12/2022

PLAINTIF DATO MUHAMMAD HAFIDZ BIN NURUDDIN DEFENDAN 1. ) INTAN SYAFINAZ BINTI REJAB 2. ) PUBLIC MUTUAL BERHAD

TORT: Pemalsuan tandatangan pada Borang – Pecah amanah – Penipuan – Hubungan antara pelabur, ejen/unit trust consultant (UTC) – Sama ada UTCtelah bertindak mengendalikan dan/atau menguruskan akaun Plaintif tersebut sesuka hati tanpa merujuk dan/atau mendapatkan kebenaran daripada Plaintif terlebih dahulu − Sama ada pertukaran akaun (switching accounts) dan melakukan penebusan- (redemptions) oleh UTC tanpa kebenaran Plaintif − Sama ada Defendan Kedua bertanggungan secara bersesama dan/atau secara berasingan dan/atau vicarious terhadap pemalsuan/pecah amanah/penipuan/kecuaian oleh Defendan Pertama.

21/12/2023

YA Puan Rozi Binti Bainon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=cd92d210-4b1f-4126-a68f-8852a1502a53&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: BA-23NCvC-62-12/2022 ANTARA DATO’ MUHAMMAD HAFIDZ BIN NURUDDIN (No. K/P: 531101-08-7065) − PLAINTIF DAN 1. INTAN SYAFINAZ BINTI REJAB (No. K/P: 840910-07-5434) 2. PUBLIC MUTUAL BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 197501001842/23419-A) − DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan ialah untuk Defendan-Defendan secara berseama dan/atau berasingan membayar jumlah kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif sebanyak RM1,261,957.10 dalam masa 14 hari dari tarikh penghakiman dan/atau perintah Mahkamah. Selain itu, Plaintif juga menuntut ganti rugi am terhadap Defendan-Defendan, faedah dan kos. 21/12/2023 13:11:07 BA-23NCvC-62-12/2022 Kand. 89 S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] Plaintif memplidkan bahawa kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif adalah daripada pelaburan Plaintif dengan Defendan Kedua (Public Mutual Berhad), manakala Defendan Pertama ialah Unit Trust Consultant dengan Defendan Kedua. [3] Kausa tindakan Plaintif adalah − terhadap Defendan Pertama (Puan Intan Syafinaz binti Rejab): (a) pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif oleh Defendan Pertama (Puan Intan Syafinaz binti Rejab); dan/atau (b) pecah amanah; dan/atau (c) penipuan; dan/atau (d) kecuaian Defendan Pertama terhadap Plaintif. terhadap Defendan Kedua (Public Mutual Berhad): (a) kemungkiran dan/atau kegagalan dan/atau kecuaian dan/atau perlanggaran tanggungjawab berjaga-jaga (breach of duty of care); dan/atau (b) tanggungan secara bersesama dan/atau secara berasingan dan/atau vicarious (joint and/or several and/or vicarious liability) terhadap pemalsuan dan/atau pecah amanah dan/atau penipuan dan/atau kecuaian oleh Defendan Pertama. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Keputusan Mahkamah pada 3-10-2023: [4] Pada 3-10-2023, Mahkamah ini memutuskan seperti yang berikut: JUMLAH KERUGIAN BERNILAI RM1,261,957.10 Pada perenggan 22 pernyataan tuntutan, jumlah RM1,261,957.10 ialah kerugian keuntungan dan/atau pendapatan yang Plaintif alami di mana butir-butir pelaburan, penebusan dan kerugian dikira oleh Plaintif. Keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif adalah berkenaan dengan – (a) hubungan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama iaitu pelanggan dan Unit Trust Consultant; dan hubungan Plaintif sebagai pemegang akaun pelaburan dengan Defendan Kedua. (b) butir-butir kejadian dan tindakan yang membawa kepada kerugian sebanyak RM1,261,957.10 iaitu – • pemalsuan tandatangan pada redemption forms dan/atau request for switching forms yang mengakibatkan berlaku penebusan dan/atau penukaran wang dan/atau akaun pelaburan Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 • Defendan Pertama sebagai Unit Trust Consultant kepada Plaintif telah, menyalahgunakan kedudukannya; gagal dan/atau cuai untuk mengambil langkah berjaga-jaga; melakukan pecah amanah dan/atau penipuan; gagal dan/atau cuai untuk memastikan kepentingan Plaintif sebagai pelanggan di Defendan Kedua; gagal dan/atau cuai untuk mengurus dan mengendalikan akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua, menyembunyikan tindakan yang membabitkan akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua. • Defendan Kedua sebagai pihak yang mana Plaintif mempunyai akaun pelaburan telah, cuai/gagal untuk menyemak dan/atau peka dengan keadaan akaun dan pelaburan Plaintif; cuai/gagal/abai untuk menjaga hak dan kepentingan Plaintif sebagai pelanggan Defendan Kedua; cuai/gagal untuk melatih Defendan Pertama sebagai ejen/Unit Trust Consultant Defendan Kedua. (c) perenggan 23 pernyataan tuntutan memperihalkan mengenai ganti rugi am. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Beban pembuktian terletak kepada Plaintif yang mengatakan perkara yang berikut: (a) D1 telah menyalahgunakan hubungannya sebagai “Unit Trust Consultant” dengan Plaintif sebagai pelanggan D2 di bawah jagaannya. (b) D1 telah gagal untuk memulangkan kepada Plaintif wang- wang yang Plaintif pinjamkan kepadanya. (c) D1 melakukan penipuan, pembohongan dan pengkhianatannya terhadap Plaintif sehingga Plaintif mencurigai pelaburan Plaintif dengan D2 yang dalam jagaan D1. (d) D1 bersikap tidak profesional, tidak memaklumkan perkembangan secara berterusan pelaburan Plaintif di dalam D2 kepada Plaintif. (e) jumlah pelaburan Plaintif di dalam D2 tinggal kosong kerana terdapat penebusan-penebusan (redemptions) dan pertukaran (switchings) yang membabitkan borang-borang yang mana tandatangannya telah dipalsukan. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (f) D1 bertindak mengendalikan dan/atau menguruskan Akaun PMB Plaintif tersebut sesuka hati D1 tanpa merujuk dan/atau mendapatkan kebenaran daripada Plaintif terlebih dahulu pada kebanyakan masanya, terutamanya dalam pertukaran akaun-akaun (switching accounts) dan melakukan penebusan-penebusan (redemptions). (g) Plaintif mempercayai bahawa D1 telah memalsukan tandatangan Plaintif di atas 16 daripada 19 Borang-Borang Penebusan yang telah diserahkan oleh D1 kepada D2 untuk tujuan penebusan. Oleh itu, kausa tindakan Plaintif terhadap D1 adalah berkenaan tindakan pemalsuan tandatangan dan/atau pecah amanah dan/atau penipuan dan/atau kecuaian yang dilakukan oleh D1 terhadap Plaintif dan kausa tindakan Plaintif terhadap D2 adalah kemungkiran dan/atau kegagalan dan/atau kecuaian dan/atau perlanggaran tanggungjawab berjaga-jaga (breach of duty of care) oleh D2 dan/atau tanggungan secara bersesama dan/atau berasingan dan/atau vikarius (joint and/or several and/or vicarious liability) D2 terhadap tindakan-tindakan pemalsuan tandatangan dan/atau pecah amanah dan/atau penipuan dan/atau kecuaian oleh D1 terhadap Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Keputusan dan dapatan Mahkamah: Dalam perbicaraan, Mahkamah ini telah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi kedua-dua pihak. Berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan adalah didapati bahawa, atas imbangan kebarangkalian, Plaintif gagal membuktikan kes dan tuntutannya terhadap D1 dan D2 – (a) keterangan lisan dan keterangan dokumentar yang diperoleh daripada D1 dan D2 menunjukkan bahawa D1 telah menjalankan tugas dan kewajipannya sebagai Unit Trust Consultant kepada Plaintif. (b) aduan Plaintif mengenai “salah laku” D1 telah disiasat oleh D2. (c) isu pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif pada borang, 2 orang saksi pakar daripada Plaintif dan D2 telah menjelaskan mengenai ciri tandatangan Plaintif. (d) tandatangan Plaintif bukan sahaja dilihat pada redemptions form mahupun switching accounts form tetapi juga hendaklah dilihat pada borang “new investor form”. (e) jumlah RM1,261,957.10 yang dikatakan kerugian keuntungan dan/atau pendapatan yang Plaintif alami dan dikira oleh Plaintif gagal dibuktikan oleh Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Penelitian Mahkamah ini selepas meneliti semua dokumen dan keterangan lisan dan dokumentar yang dibentangkan oleh pihak- pihak di hadapan Mahkamah ini, dan hujahan bertulis serta hujahan balasan pihak-pihak, Mahkamah ini mendapati atas imbangan kebarangkalian Plaintif gagal untuk membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-Defendan. Oleh yang demikian, saya menolak tuntutan Plaintif dan dengan kos iaitu sebanyak RM25,000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur) dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan Pertama dan sebanyak RM25,000.00 (tertakluk kepada fi alokatur) dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan Kedua. [5] Plaintif tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah, kini merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan. [6] Penghakiman ini mengandungi alasan mengapa tuntutan Plaintif ditolak. Hubungan Plaintif dengan Defendan Pertama dan dengan Defendan Kedua: [7] Plaintif ialah seorang peguam dan pemilik tunggal di Tetuan Hafidz & Co. Plaintif sudah berkahwin. Defendan Pertama juga sudah berkahwin S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [8] Perkenalan Dato’ Muhammad Hafidz bin Nuruddin (Plaintif) dengan Puan Intan Syafinaz binti Rejab (Defendan Pertama) bermula pada tahun 2018 di mana Plaintif menyatakan bahawa pada ketika itu Defendan Pertama berkhidmat dengan Public Mutual Berhad (Defendan Kedua) sebagai Unit Trust Consultant. [9] Plaintif memplidkan bahawa berdasarkan representasi Defendan Pertama mengenai unit amanah di dalam Defendan Kedua di mana pelaburan yang akan dibuat mendatangkan keuntungan, maka Plaintif bersetuju untuk menjadi pelabur dan suatu akaun di Defendan Kedua dibuka. [10] Dalam jadual pada perenggan 6 pernyataan tuntutan, Plaintif memplidkan bahawa bermula pada tarikh transaksi pada 12-6-2018 hingga 3-11-2020, jumlah pelaburan Plaintif dengan Defendan Kedua ialah sebanyak RM19,826,039.27. Pertikaian Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan: [11] Plaintif membangkitkan isu dan pertikaian yang berikut terhadap Defendan Pertama: (a) Defendan Pertama telah gagal dan/atau cuai dan/atau abai untuk mengemaskinikan (update) dan/atau memberikan maklumat terkini secara tetap (regularly) kepada Plaintif berhubung perkembangan pelaburannya dengan Defendan Kedua sepertimana dijanjikan. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (b) Plaintif tiada pengetahuan mahupun dimaklumkan oleh Defendan Pertama berkenaan dengan pengurusan dan/atau pengendalian akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua tersebut. Defendan Pertama telah bertindak mengendalikan dan/atau menguruskan akaun Plaintif tersebut sesuka hati Defendan Pertama tanpa merujuk dan/atau mendapatkan kebenaran daripada Plaintif terlebih dahulu pada kebanyakan masanya, terutamanya dalam pertukaran akaun-akaun (switching accounts) dan melakukan penebusan-penebusan (redemptions). (c) Defendan Pertama telah menyalahgunakan hubungannya sebagai “Unit Trust Consultant” dengan Plaintif sebagai pelanggan PMB di bawah jagaannya dengan bertindak meminta-minta wang daripada Plaintif sebagai pinjaman yang mana Defendan Pertama telah gagal untuk memulangkannya kepada Plaintif sehingga kini dan juga meminta-minta hadiah daripada Plaintif, Plaintif telah mula tidak mempercayai Defendan Pertama tersebut dan khuatir dengan pelaburannya dengan Defendan Kedua. (d) Plaintif mengatakan yang Plaintif mempercayai Defendan Pertama yang telah memalsukan tandatangan Plaintif pada 16 Borang-Borang Penebusan tersebut kerana Defendan Pertama yang menguruskan akaun Plaintif pada setiap masa material dan Defendan Pertama juga yang telah mengemukakan Borang-Borang Penebusan tersebut kepada Defendan Kedua. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (e) 16 Borang Penebusan Palsu tersebut juga tidak pernah dipersetujui dan/atau diarahkan dan/atau dibenarkan oleh Plaintif pada setiap masa material. Plaintif juga tidak pernah menandatangani secara awal (pre-sign) 16 Borang Penebusan Palsu tersebut serta tidak mempunyai sebarang pengetahuan mengenainya. (f) Sungguhpun jumlah-jumlah yang ditebus tersebut telah dimasukkan ke akaun Plaintif, tandatangan pada 16 Borang Penebusan Palsu tersebut telah tidak pernah diarahkan dan/atau dibenarkan oleh Plaintif dan keputusan berkenaan berapa banyak dan bila untuk ditebus adalah merupakan hak Plaintif kerana setiap penebusan akan menentukan sama ada berlakunya untung atau rugi ke atas pelaburan Plaintif. [12] Plaintif memperihalkan butiran yang berikut dalam pernyataan tuntutannya: Bil. Perkara Pernyataan Tuntutan 1. Butir-butir Tindakan Pemalsuan Tandatangan dan/atau Pecah Amanah dan/atau Penipuan dan/atau Kecuaian oleh Defendan Pertama terhadap Plaintif. perenggan 20 S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Bil. Perkara Pernyataan Tuntutan 2. Butir-butir Kemungkiran dan/atau Kegagalan dan/atau Kecuaian dan/atau Perlanggaran Tanggungjawab Berjaga-jaga (Breach of Duty of Care) oleh Defendan Kedua dan/atau Tanggungan Secara Bersesama dan/atau Berasingan dan/atau Vikarius (Joint and/or Several And/Or Vicarious Liability) Defendan Kedua terhadap Tindakan-Tindakan Pemalsuan Tandatangan dan/atau Pecah Amanah dan/atau Penipuan dan/atau Kecuaian oleh Defendan Pertama terhadap Plaintif. perenggan 21 [13] Kerugian yang dialami oleh Plaintif adalah − (a) Plaintif telah mengalami kerugian keuntungan dan/atau pendapatan sebanyak RM1,261,957.10 yang mana butir-butir dan/atau pengiraan dinyatakan dalam jadual sebagaimana pada perenggan 22 pernyataan tuntutan. (b) Plaintif juga mengalami kesusahan, kesulitan dan kesengsaraan serta tekanan perasaan dan dalam keadaan yang demikian, Plaintif adalah juga berhak ke atas ganti rugi am sebagaimana diperihalkan dalam perenggan 23. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [14] Plaintif mengatakan bahawa Defendan-Defendan tidak mempunyai pembelaan bermerit terhadap tuntutan ini dan jikapun Defendan menampilkan pembelaannya selepas daripada ini, ianya adalah merupakan suatu fikiran terkemudian dan bertujuan untuk menafikan dan/atau melengahkan hak Plaintif yang sah di sisi undang-undang. [15] Plaintif akan mengemukakan kesemua keterangan yang berkenaan tuntutan Plaintif kelak. [16] Sebelum Mahkamah ini melangkah ke penemuan fakta dan pemakaian undang-undang, pembelaan Defendan-Defendan perlu dinyatakan di sini. Pembelaan Defendan Pertama [17] Defendan Pertama memplidkan bahawa tuntutan Plaintif itu adalah suatu tindakan yang mengaibkan, remeh dan menyalahgunakan proses Mahkamah. [18] Defendan Pertama ada dan telah memaklumkan Plaintif berkenaan dengan pelaburan Plaintif di Defendan Kedua itu termasuk memberikan penyata akaun secara berkala dan mengemaskinikan maklumat kepada Plaintif. [19] Defendan Pertama memplidkan bahawa segala pengurusan atau pengendalian akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua adalah merujuk atau dengan mendapatkan kebenaran Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [20] Selanjutnya, Defendan Pertama memplidkan perkara yang berikut yang dipertikaikan oleh Plaintif: (a) pertukaran akaun (swutching accounts) adalah bukan perkara luar biasa. Ini dilakukan demi mengelakkan pelabur mengalami kerugian. Defendan Pertama melaksanakan/memutuskan mengenai perkara ini bukan secara sembrono tetapi dengan memaklumkan kepada Plaintif dan Plaintif akan dihubungi oleh pihak Ibu Pejabat Defendan Kedua untuk pengesahan sebelum transaksi pertukaran akaun (swutching accounts) diteruskan. (b) penebusan pelaburan akaun (redemption) hanya dilakukan menurut arahan, kehendak dan/atau pengetahuan Plaintif. (c) setiap kali penebusan pelaburan akaun (redemption), wang dimasukkan ke akaun Plaintif sendiri. (d) bagi penebusan pelaburan akaun (redemption) Defendan Pertama akan kehilangan elaun, bonus dan komisen. Reputasi Defendan Pertama juga terjejas. [21] Berkenaan dengan urusan borang penebusan yang di tandatangani awal (pre-signed) tanpa tarikh dan diserahkan kepada Defendan Pertama untuk disimpan, Defendan Pertama memplidkan bahawa urusan ini telah dipersetujui oleh Plaintif sendiri dan dalam pengetahuan Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [22] Pada perenggan 8.7 pembelaan Defendan Pertama, diplidkan – “8.7 Namun hanya sekarang perkara yang diadukan ini timbul kerana Plaintif memang berniat untuk menyalahgunakan proses Mahkamah bagi memeras-ugut Defendan Pertama kerana kegagalan Defendan Pertama berkahwin dengan Plaintif (sebagaimana butiran yang akan diberikan selepas ini).”. [23] Pada perenggan 15.2 hingga 15.10 pembelaan Defendan Pertama menyatakan bahawa – (a) Plaintif ada memberi hadiah tertentu dan/atau memindahkan wang yang dimasukkan oleh Plaintif atas niat untuk memujuk atau memancing Defendan Pertama supaya mengahwini Plaintif. Defendan Pertama menegaskan bahawa semua pembayaran tersebut adalah ihsan pembayaran dan/atau pemberian Plaintif sendiri dan tiada persetujuan menyatakan Defendan Pertama harus membayar semula. (b) Plaintif melakukan pelbagai cara memujuk Defendan Pertama supaya mengahwini Plaintif termasuk meminta Defendan Pertama bercerai dengan suami. (c) Plaintif cuba mencampur-adukkan urusan peribadi dan urusan professional pihak-pihak di sini dengan cara menggunakan Mahkamah ini untuk menjustifikasikan tuntutannya dan menekan Defendan Pertama. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 (d) Plaintif mengetahui yang Defendan pertama mempunyai kerjaya dan pendapatan di Defendan Kedua, tetapi Plaintif sanggup mengeluarkan wang yang banyak untuk memujuk Defendan Pertama dan menunaikan hasrat peribadi serta nafsu Plaintif. (e) menjadi kebiasaan Plaintif memberikan sejumlah wang ke dalam akaun Defendan Pertama dan mencatatkan yang wang tersebut atas urusan infaq, sedekah atau sumbangan untuk mengaburi mata ahli keluarga Plaintif. Tindakan guaman ini adalah berniat jahat untuk mengaburi mata ahli keluarga Plaintif dan Plaintif tidak mendedahkan kepada Mahkamah ini bahawa sebahagian wang yang dipindahkan ke akaun Defendan Pertama ialah untuk menunaikan hasrat peribadi serta nafsu Plaintif. (f) selama menjalankan tanggungjawab dan amanah ke atas akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua. Plaintif tidak selalu meminta sebarang penyata berkenaan dengan urusan pelaburan tersebut dan hanya bertindak sedemikian selepas Defendan Pertama berterusan menolak permintaan Plaintif untuk mengahwininya. (g) apabila mengetahui Defendan Pertama masih dalam perkahwinan dan enggan bercerai, Plaintif pernah cuba mencabul kehormatan Defendan Pertama pada2-11-2020 di pejabat Plaintif selepas mengarahkan kakitangannya pulang. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (h) selepas peristiwa itu, Defendan Pertama enggan bertemu Plaintif secara bersemuka dan semua urusan dengan Plaintif adalah melalui medium yang tidak melibatkan pertemuan secara fizikal. [24] Bagi butiran mengenai tindakan pemalsuan tandatangan dan/atau pecagh amanah dan/atau penipuan dan/atau kecuaian yang diplidkan Plaintif, Defendan Pertama membela dirinya, iaitu – (a) sebagai ejen/konsultan, Defendan Pertama telah melaksanakan semua tanggungjawab dan kepercayaan Plaintif dan Defendan Kedua dengan berhemah, berhati-hati dan amanah. (b) Defendan Pertama tidak dituduh menyalahgunakan apa-apa wang pelaburan yang diamanahkan kepada Defendan Pertama. Malah, Plaintif sendiri mengakui wang penebusan (redemption) dari akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua semuanya dimasukkan ke akaun Plaintif sendiri. (c) apa-apa tindakan dan perbuatan Defendan Pertama sepanjang mengendalikan akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua, Defendan Pertama adalah berpandukan kepada arahan dan kehendak Plaintif semata-mata, serta bagi kepentingan dan hak Plaintif. Plaintif telah menerima keuntungan sebagaimana tujuan asal pembukaan akaun di Defendan Kedua. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [25] Bagi butiran mengenai kerugian dan/atau kesusahan dan/atau kesengsaraan Plaintif, Defendan Pertama membela dirinya, iaitu – (a) menurut pengetahuan dan rekod Defendan Pertama, Plaintif menggunakan dana yang bukan dimiliki Plaintif bagi tujuan pelaburan dengan Defendan Kedua. (b) Plaintif telah menyalahgunakan akaun pelanggan (client’s account) bagi tujuan pelaburan dengan Defendan Kedua dan sumber kewangan itu bukan milik Plaintif secara peribadi. (c) Plaintif kononnya terkesan, risau, takut dan susah hati dengan perbuatan yang dikaitkan dengan Defendan Pertama iaitu Defendan Pertama meniru tandatangan Plaintif di dalam semua borang penukaran akaun atau penebusan adalah dinafikan oleh Defendan Pertama. (d) Plaintif seharusnya risau, takut dan susah hati dengan perbuatannya sendiri yang menggunakan akaun pelanggan (client’s account) bagi tujuan peribadi. (e) arahan Plaintif dari semasa ke semasa kepada Defendan Pertama bagi penjalanan dan transaksi melibatkan akaun d Defendan Kedua adalah dilaksanakan mengikut kehendak Plaintif. (f) apa-apa kerugian yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif berpunca dan disumbangkan oleh tindakan Plaintif sendiri. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Pembelaan Defendan Kedua [26] Defendan Kedua terlibat dalam perniagaan penjualan dan pengurusan Dana Unit Amanah (Unit Trust Funds) dan Dana Skim Persaraan Swasta (Private Retirement Scheme Fund). Defendan Kedua ialah pengurus Dana berlesen. [27] Hubungan antara Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua adalah mengikut Kontrak Agensi bertarikh 1-12-2018 dan semua perjanjian, kod etika dan garis panduan yang berkaitan yang dilaksanakan dan/atau dipersetujui oleh Defendan Pertama. [28] Hubungan antara Plaintif dan Defendan Kedua adalah semata- mata bersifat kontraktual di bawah perjanjian yang berikut (selepas ini disebut secara kolektif sebagai “Perjanjian-Perjanjian”): Bil. Dokumen Tarikh (a) Borang Pelabur Baru-Individu/ New Investor Form-Individual 18-5-2018 (b) Borang Penilaian Kesesuaian/Suitability Assessment Form 18-5-2018 & 12-3-2019 (c) Prospektus Induk/Master Prospectus dan Prospektus Tambahan/Supplemental Prospectus bagi Dana Siri Public Berasaskan Shariah/Public Series of Shariah-based Funds S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Bil. Dokumen Tarikh (d) Lembaran Sorotan Produk/Products Highlights Sheets untuk Dana masing- masing yang dilaburkan oleh Plaintif (e) Borang Permohonan Pelaburan/Borang Permohonan Pelaburan Tambahan bagi setiap Dana yang dilaburkan oleh Plaintif 12-6-2018, 20-6-2018, 26-3-2019, 9-4-2020, 22-6-2020, 30-6-2020, 2-7-2020, 15-7-2020, 11-8-2020, 21-8-2020, dan 3-11-2020 (f) Surat Ikatan Induk/Master Deed, termasuk semua Surat Ikatan Induk Tambahan/Supplemental Master Deeds 28-1-1999 [29] Melalui Perjanjian-Perjanjian tersebut, Plaintif telah bersetuju bahawa – (a) Plaintif hendaklah menerima dan membaca Prospektus Induk/Master Prospectus dan Prospektus Tambahan/Supplemental Prospectus dan Lembaran Sorotan Produk/Products Highlights Sheets untuk Dana sebelum membuat keputusan sama ada untuk melabur dalam Dana atau tidak seperti yang dipilih oleh Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (b) harga unit Dana mungkin turun dan juga mungkin naik. Justeru, prestasi masa lalu Dana bukanlah petunjuk prestasi masa depannya. Dana tersebut bukan dana modal terjamin atau dana modal terlindung. Oleh itu, tiada kepastian bahawa Dana akan mendatangkan keuntungan pada masa hadapan. (c) Plaintif bebas untuk menukar unit-unitnya antara Dana dan menebus Dana menurut terma dalam Perjanjian-Perjanjian. (d) Plaintif hendaklah bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya ke atas keputusan pelaburannya yang termasuk pertukaran dan penebusan. (e) unit-unit yang dinyatakan dalam penyata-penyata yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Kedua kepada Plaintif adalah muktamad tentang ketepatan unit-unit tersebut yang dinyatakan di dalamnya, melainkan notis bertulis tentang sebarang kesilapan, jika ada, diberikan kepada Defendan Kedua dalam tempoh 21 hari dari tarikh penyata-penyata [rujuk klausa 50(1) Surat Ikatan Induk/Master Deed bertarikh 28-1-1999]. (f) Defendan Kedua tidak akan bertanggungjawab ke atas kesahihan mana-mana tandatangan dan tidak akan bertanggungjawab dalam apa-apa cara ke atas sebarang tandatangan palsu atau yang tidak diberi kuasa/kebenaran pada mana-mana dokumen dan tidak akan bertanggungjawab dalam bertindak atau memberikan kesan kepada mana-mana tandatangan yang dipalsukan atau tidak S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 diberi kuasa/kebenaran [rujuk klausa 50(3) Surat Ikatan Induk/Master Deed bertarikh 28-1-1999]. [30] Obligasi Defendan Kedua berkenaan dengan pengurusan dan prestasi Dana dinyatakan dalam Perjanjian-Perjanjian. [31] Defendan Kedua menafikan bahawa Defendan Pertama membuat representasi palsu mengenai keuntungan hasil pelaburan dengan Defendan Kedua. Defendan Pertama adalah tertakluk kepada Kod Etika dan Borang Pematuhan Unit Trust Consultan/UTC bertarikh 15-11-2018. [32] Berdasarkan kepada kewajipan kontraktual berkenaan dengan Dana Plaintif, Defendan Kedua memplidkan bahawa terma Perjanjian- Perjanjian adalah dipatuhi; Defendan Kedua hanya bertanggungjawab ke atas tindakan/perbuatan Defendan Pertama dengan syarat tindakan/perbuatan tersebut adalah dibenarkan oleh Defendan Kedua dan berada dalam skop agensi Defendan Pertama; dan Defendan Kedua tidak mempunyai tanggungan/liabiliti atau tanggungjawab ketat kepada Plaintif. [33] Defendan Kedua memplidkan bahawa selepas setiap pertukaran dan/atau penebusan yang melibatkan Dana Plaintif, penyata transaksi akan dikeluarkan kepada Plaintif (pada lazimnya, pada hari perniagaan berikutnya); hasil penebusan (proceeds from the redemption) akan dikreditkan ke dalam akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua (pada lazimnya 2 hari perniagaan); penyata-penyata akaun tahunan, interim, suku tahunan dan bulanan mengenai status Dana Plaintif juga dikeluarkan kepada Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [34] Pada perenggan 13 pembelaan Defendan Kedua, Defendan Kedua memplidkan bahawa walaupun Defendan Pertama mungkin telah memudahkan penebusan-penebusan tersebut oleh Plaintif, Defendan Kedua menyatakan bahawa semua penebusan yang melibatkan Dana Plaintif telah dibenarkan dan/atau dipersetujui oleh Plaintif. [35] Berkenaan dengan tindakan/perbuatan Defendan Pertama, Defendan Kedua memplidkan − (a) tiada apa-apa yang mencurigakan mengenai mana-mana penebusan kerana semua penebusan telah dibenarkan dan/atau dipersetujui oleh Plaintif. (b) pertikaian mengenai tandatangan Plaintif pada Borang- Borang Permohonan Penebusan yang dipertikaikan kerana ditulis oleh Defendan Pertama dan/atau Defendan Pertama telah menguruskan penebusan-penebusannya, Defendan Kedua pasti bahawa Plaintif telah membenarkan dan/atau bersetuju dengan semua penebusan tersebut. Defendan Kedua menggunapakai prinsip “volenti non fit injuria” terhadap Plaintif. (c) secara alternatifnya, Defendan Kedua memplidkan bahawa Plaintif sendiri cuai dan/atau cuai sumbang. Butir-burtir kecuaian Plaintif dinyatakan dalam perenggan 16(c) (i) dan (ii) pembelaan Defendan Kedua. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 (d) dalam perenggan 16(d) pembelaan Defendan Kedua, Defendan Kedua menyenaraikan mengenai penebusan- penebusan yang telah dikreditkan ke akaun bank yang didaftarkan dengan Defendan Kedua. (e) Defendan Kedua telah mengemukakan dengan sewajarnya penyata-penyata transaksi dan penyata-penyata akaun kepada Plaintif.Defendan Kedua memplidkan bahawa Plaintif tidak menyoal, membantah atau mempertikaikan mengenai mana-mana penebsan tersebut. Plaintif hanya mengemukakan aduannya kepada Defendan Kedua pada 10- 5-2022 iaitu lebih setahun selepas penebusan terakhir oleh Plaintif iaitu pada 6-1-2021. Defendan Kedua menyatakan bahawa ini merupakan suatu afterthought oleh Plaintif. [36] Selanjutnya, Defendan Kedua memplidkan perkara yang berikut sebagai jawapan kepada pernyataan tuntutan: (a) Defendan Kedua tidak berhutang mahupun mempunyai apa- apa tanggungjawab berjaga-jaga berunsur tort kepada Plaintif. (b) Defendan Kedua tidak melanggar kewajipan kontraktualnya kepada Plaintif. (c) Defendan Kedua mempunyai dasar, tatacara dan kod etika untuk mengingatkan ejen-ejennya seperti Defendan Pertama tentang standard etika dan kelakuan professional mereka. Menurut Kod Etika di Defendan Kedua, Defendan Pertama S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 diingatkan supaya tidak melakukan pemalsuan tandatangan pelabur dan skop agensi Defendan Pertama jelas tidak termasuk memalsukan tandatangan dan melakukan apa-apa transaksi tanpa autoriti pemegang unit seperti Plaintif. (d) Defendan Kedua tidak bertanggungan secara bersesama dan/atu secara berasingan dan/atau secara vicarious kepada Plaintif atas perbuatan salah Defendan Pertama yang diplidkan dalam pernyataan tuntutan. Defendan Kedua memplidkan bahawa jika pun dakwaan Plaintif itu benar, yang mana Defendan Kedua menafikan, Defendan Pertama itu telah bertindak atas kehendak dan kemahuannya sendiri (“on a frolic of her own”). (e) berdasarkan persetujuan dalam terma-terma Perjanjian- Perjanjian, Plaintif yang membuat keputusan mengenai pelaburannya dengan Defendan Kedua bersetuju dengan harga unit Dana yang mungkin naik dan mungkin turun. Defendan Kedua memplidkan bahawa Plaintif adalah diestop dan dihalang daripada membangkitkan hal perkara kerugian. (f) apa-apa kerugian dan kesengsaraan yang Plaintif alami, yang dinafikan oleh Defendan Kedua, tidak boleh dikaitkan atau diakibatkan dengan atau oleh Defendan Kedua. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 Isu untuk dibicarakan [37] Plaintif dan Defendan Kedua memfailkan senara isu untuk dibicarakan dan diputuskan oleh Mahkamah ini seperti yang berikut: Plaintif Defendan Kedua Sama ada Defendan Pertama gagal/ cuai/abai untuk mengemaskinikan (update)/memberikan maklumat terkini secara tetap kepada Plaintif mengenai pelaburannya? Sama ada Plaintif telah dikemaskinikan status Dana unit amanah, termasuk selepas setiap pelaburan, pertukaran dan penebusan? Sama ada Defendan Pertama telah bertindak mengendalikan/menguruskan akaun Plaintif sesuka hati Defendan Pertama tanpa merujuk/mendapatkan kebenaran daripada Plaintif terlebih dahulu, terutamanya dalam pertukaran akaun-akaun (switching accounts) dan melakukan penebusan- penebusan (redemptions)? Sama ada Plaintif telah membenarkan/bersetujukepada semua pertukaran dan penebusan Dana? S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 Plaintif Defendan Kedua Sama ada tindakan Defendan Pertama yang telah menyalahgunakan hubungannya sebagai “Unit Trust Consultant” dengan Plaintif sebagai pelanggan Defendan Kedua? Sama ada skop perkerjaan Defendan Pertama adalah seperti yang terkandung dalam Kontrak Agensi, Borang Pematuhan UTC, Kod Etika, Service Delivery Guides dan Memorandum/Pekeliling yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Kedua? Sama ada Defendan Pertama melakukan pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif pada Borang Penebusan yang telah diserahkan oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua? Sama ada pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif yang dikatakan dilakukan oleh Defendan Pertama adalah tanpa kebenaran Defendan Kedua dan/atau melampaui skop perkerjaan Defendan Pertama? Sama ada Defendan Pertama memalsukan tandatangan Plaintif pada Borang Permohonan Untuk Penukaran (Request for Switching Forms) yang mana Defendan Pertama telah melakukan 7 penukaran (switching account) tanpa kebenaran Plaintif yang Sama ada Defendan Kedua adalah bertanggungjawab secara vikarius untuk tindakan pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif yang dikatakan telah dibuat oleh Defendan Pertama, yang mana adalah dinafikan? S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 Plaintif Defendan Kedua membabitkan akaun pelaburan Plaintif? Sama ada Defendan Pertama telah melakukan pemalsuan tandatangan dan/atau pecah amanah dan/atau penipuan dan/atau kecuaian terhadap Plaintif? Sama ada Defendan Kedua telah memungkiri kontrak dengan Plaintif? Sama ada Defendan Kedua telah melakukan kemungkiran/kegagalan/kecuai an/perlanggaran tanggungjawab berjaga-jaga (breach of duty of care) dan/atau tanggungan secara bersesama dan/atau berasingan dan/atau vikarius (joint and/or several and/or vicarious liability) terhadap pemalsuan tandatangan dan/atau pecah amanah dan/atau penipuan dan/atau kecuaian oleh Defendan Pertama terhadap Plaintif? Sama ada Plaintif telah cuai/wujudnya kecuaian sertaan (contributory negligence) oleh Plaintif (tanpa sebarang pengakuan mengenai Defendan Kedua berkewajipan dari segi tort berjaga- jaga terhadap Plaintif atau apa-apa pelanggaran akannya, seperti yang didakwa) berkenaan dengan dakwaan Plaintif ke atas pertukaran dan penebusan yang dibuat tanpa kebenaran? S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 Plaintif Defendan Kedua Sama ada Plaintif mengalami kerugian pelaburan yang tidak dibenarkan (unauthorized)/tidak dipersetujui oleh Plaintif? Sama ada kerugian pelaburan Plaintif tersebut boleh dikaitkan (attributable) kepada Defendan Kedua? Analisis dan Dapatan Mahkamah Beban pembuktian: [38] Beban pembuktian adalah terletak kepada Plaintif untuk membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-Defendan. peruntukan undang-undang dan nas undang-undang kes adalah mantap mengenai beban pembuktian dalam kes sivil iaitu − • seksyen 101, 102 dan 106 Akta Keterangan 1950 (Akta 56). • Zainuddin Bin Uyub Dan Jalil Bin Tumirin [2009] 1 LNS 1139. • Berjaya Development Sdn Bhd v. Keretaapi Tanah Melayu Berhad [2012] 4 CLJ 35. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 • Juta Damai Sdn Bhd v. Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd [2014] 5 CLJ 318. • Heritage Grand Vacation Club Bhd V. Pacific Fantasy Vacation Sdn Bhd [2016] 7 CLJ 679. • Ineax Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Ineax Process Sdn Bhd And Ng Wee Keat [2017] 1 LNS 1187. • Cahaya Berlian Sdn Bhd (Company No: 742437-K) v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur [2020] 1 LNS 396. [39] Dalam kes The Carbon Company Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Ng Lee Hoon [2017] 6 CLJ 189, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan – “[49] The law on the burden of proof is so settled. Pursuant to s. 101(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, a party who desires the court to give judgment in its favour as to the legal right or liability bears the burden to prove its case. The burden of proof on that party is twofold, firstly the burden of establishing a case and secondly the burden of introducing evidence. This burden lies on the party throughout the case and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Once that party has discharged its evidential burden of proof then the burden would then shift to its adversary. If a party has failed to discharge its burden of proof on the standard required by the law, hisadversary does not bear the burden to adduce any evidence. In the case at hand, the plaintiff, a sole proprietor has to discharge her burden of proof to prove her case as well as to introduce evidence in support of her S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 pleaded case. It is not the defendant’s duty to fill up the gaps in the plaintiff’s case/ or be accused of notestablishing their defence (see Yeohata Machineries Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Coil Master Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 2 CLJ 414; Selvaduray v. Chinniah [1939] 1 LNS 107; [1939] MLJ 253 SC; s. 2 of the Evidence Act 1950; Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co [1883] 11 QBD 440 (CA)).”. [40] Mahkamah ingin merujuk keputusan di Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru, YA Puan Evrol Mariette Peters, JC memutuskan (pada muka surat 654) dalam kes, Techcrew Sdn Bhd v. Nurhamizah Hamzah & Ors [2020] 4 MLRH 635 – Whether the plaintiff had proved Its Loss? Regardless of the 1st defendant’s liability, in the final analysis, the question was whether the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that it had suffered loss as a result of the 1st defendant’s negligence, bearing in mind that this court had to consider the probability of the Court of Appeal overruling the High Court in the MAB Suit. After considering all the relevant evidence, both oral and documentary, I found that the plaintiff had failed to do so, and the following are my reasons: According to the case of Mount v. Barker Austin (a fire) f1998J PNLR 493, the plaintiff must prove that it had a real and substantial prospect of success, rather than a mere negligible one. In other words, to show that it had a winnable case, based upon the evidence adduced by the plaintiff the Court would be S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 required to assess the outcome of the case, had there been no negligence on the part of the 1st defendant. Based on the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatis qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on the one who denies, the plaintiff had the legal burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that it had a winnable case. The legal burden is imposed on the plaintiff as prescribed by s 101 of the Evidence Act, which reads: Section 101 - burden of proof (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which lie asserts, must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. This was explained in the case of Hong Yik Trading v. Liziz Plantation Sdn Bhd [2017J 4 MLRA 89, [2017] 5 MLJ 398; [2017J 8 CLJ 491 by Arifin Zakaria CJ in the following words: It is settled law that the burden of proof rests throughout the trial on the party who asserts that the facts exist (s 101 of the Evidence Act 1950). Where a party on whom the burden of proof lies has discharged that burdens then the evidential burden shifts to the other party. However, if the party on whom the burden of proof lies fails to discharge it, the other party need not call any evidence. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 [41] Penganalisaan keterangan yang dinyatakan oleh Plaintif melalui keterangan lisan 3 orang saksinya iaitu – i. Puan Nor Haslia binti Ilyas, Graphic Designer (SP-1); ii. Plaintif sendiri iaitu Dato’ Muhammad Hafidz bin Nuruddin, peguam (SP-2); dan iii. En. Chua Chun Kee, Ahli Kimia, Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, Petaling Jaya (SP-3), mendapati bahawa Plaintif gagal untuk membuktikan “tuduhan/alegasinya” terhadap Defendan Pertama. [42] Puan Nor Haslia binti Ilyas, Graphic Designer (SP-1) dalam keterangannya mengakui bahawa Defendan Pertama itu ialah rakan sekerjanya di syarikat terdahulu dan pelanggan/client kepada SP-1. SP- 1 hanya menyunting dan mengubah angka pada “proposal for marketing” yang diminta oleh Defendan Pertama. [43] Keterangan SP-1 ini membawa kepada penemuan fakta bahawa pelanggan Defendan Pertama ialah Plaintif dan isteri Plaintif. Mahkamah ini mendapati apa-apa penyuntingan/editing yang dilakukan oleh SP-1 sebagaiman kehendak dan permintaan Defendan Pertama tidak membuktikan bahawa Defendan Pertama telah menyalahgunakan kuasa sebagai ejen atau konsultan unit amanah untuk menipu pelanggannya. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 [44] Di sini, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Plaintif gagal menunjukkan bahawa disebabkan oleh proposal marketing yang diubah/dipinda/disunting itu suatu representasi salah oleh Defendan Pertama kepada pelanggan Defendan Pertama khususnya Plaintif. [45] Keterangan Plaintif (SP-2) menyatakan bahawa representasi yang dibuat oleh Defendan Pertama menyebabkannya melabur dengan Defendan Kedua dalam dana amanah. Plaintif mengakui bahawa Defendan mempunyai kepakaran dalam pelaburan dana amanah dan rekod prestasi Defendan Pertama yang baik. [46] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pelaburan yang dibuat oleh Plaintif dengan Defendan Kedua sememangnya melalui ejen atau dipanggil sebagai Unit Trust Consultant (UTC) iaitu Defendan Pertama. Pelaburan sebegini tidak dibuat secara dalam talian sebagaimana pembelian Amanah Saham Bumiputera (ASB) sebagai contoh. [47] Defendan Pertama yang merupakan UTC dengan Defendan Kedua telah memberi khidmatnya bagi tujuan Plaintif melabur dengan Defendan Kedua. [48] Selanjutnya dan semestinya, terdapat tatacara yang perlu dipatuhi oleh Defendan Pertama untuk memastikan unit amanah yang ingin dibeli oleh Plaintif itu mematuhi tatacara yang ditetapkan oleh Defendan Kedua. Ini termasuklah pengisian borang tertentu, menandatangani borang dan arahan antara pelabur (Plaintif) kepada ejen/konsultannya iaitu Defendan Pertama. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 [49] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti “New Investor Form-Individual For First Time Investor Only” di mana Plaintif dan UTC bernama Norazlin Ahmad Mokhtar terlibat dalam Borang itu. Butiran mengenai Plaintif iaitu alamat surat-menyurat, alamat e-mel, alamat pejabat, butiran khusus iaitu “purpose of transaction” ialah “investment”, “source of funds” ialah “savings” dan “monthly income” ialah RM8,001 – 15,000. Terdapat pernyataan pada Borang iaitu “I confirm that my servicing UTC has explained all the above points to me.” dan diikuti dengan tandatangan Plaintif (pelabur) dan UTC. Tarikh Borang ialah 18-5-2018. [50] Bagi tujuan melabur wang dalam Public Mutual, Mahkamah ini telah meneliti suatu “Investment Application Form (Individual Investor)” bertarikh 12-6-2018 di mana lebih kurang sebulan selepas menjadi pelabur baharu, Plaintif telah melabur sebanyak RM600,000.00 dengan Defendan Kedua. Kaedah pembayaran ialah melalui cek Maybank. Berdasarkan Borang tersebut juga adalah jelas terdapat amaran Defendan Kedua kepada pelabur bahawa UTC dan staff of Public Mutual tidak diberi kuasa untuk memungut amaun pelaburan dalam bentuk tunai (cash). [51] Tindakan undang-undang yang dibawa oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama berpaksikan kepada pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif oleh Defendan Pertama khususnya apabila Plaintif menuduh Defendan Pertama menebus (redeem) Dana pelaburannya secara tanpa kebenaran dan dengan memalsukan tandatangan Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 [52] Isu pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif membawa kepada keterangan pakar tandatangan dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan lisan dan Laporan Pakar masing-masing. Plaintif memanggil SP-3 iaitu En. Chua Chun Kee, Pemeriksa Dokumen, Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, manakala Defendan Kedua memanggil En Siow Kwen Sia, Pakar Tulisan Tangan, Forensic Consulting Services (SD2-1). [53] Dalam Laporan oleh SP-3 iaitu En. Chua Chun Kee adalah didapati bahawa beliau telah memeriksa dan menganalisa specimen tandatangan yang dihantar oleh firma guaman Plaintif sendiri iaitu Messrs. Hafidz & Co. Dokumen yang diperiksa dan dianalisa ialah Borang Public Mutual−Request For Switching dan Borang Public Mutual−Request For Redemption. SP-3 iaitu En. Chua Chun Kee menyatakan Result and Conclusion seperti berikut: “On comparison, I found that the questioned signatures “Q1A” to “Q21A” showed significant differences in handwriting characteristics from the specimen signatures SA. As such and due to limited characteristic features, I am of the opinion that these questioned signatures were probably not written by the writer of the specimens. However, my finding had limitations as the examination was based on photocopied questioned signatures. Original documents need to be submitted for confirmation.”. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 [Nota: signatures SA itu ialah specimen signatures of “Muhammad Hafidz bin Nuruddin”] [54] Suatu afidavit menurut A. 40A k. 3 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 telah diikrarkan oleh En. Chua Chun Kee sebagai saksi yang disepina oleh Plaintif. (rujuk Lampiran 21 bertarikh 4-7-2023). [55] Defendan Kedua memanggil En Siow Kwen Sia, Pakar Tulisan Tangan, Forensic Consulting Services (SD2-1) sebagai saksi pakarnya dan afidavit sebagaimana Lampiran 35 (bertarikh 14-7-2023) dan afidavit tambahan sebagaimana Lampiran 68 (bertarikh 25-7-2023) dikemukakan di Mahkamah ini. Dalam Laporan Pakar oleh SD2-1 sebagaimana Lampiran 35 (bertarikh 14-7-2023), SD2-1 menyatakan – “Conclusion From the numerous similarities in writing form and movement and the absence of significant differences and defects associated with copying, I conclude that the questioned signatures Q1 to Q21 of Dato’ Muhammad Hafidz bin Nuruddin on the said 16 request for redemption forms and the said 5 request for switching forms are of same authorship as the specimen signatures.”. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 [56] Dalam Laporan Pakar oleh SD2-1 sebagaimana afidavit tambahan Lampiran 68 (bertarikh 25-7-2023), SD2-1 menyatakan mengenai “Signature Verification Report” di mana kaedah perbandingan tandatangan adalah – • Writing Form Similarities • Writing Movement Similarities • Differences [57] Dapatan Mahkamah mengenai keterangan-keterangan 2 saksi pakar yang dipanggil ini ialah menjuruskan kepada persetujuan Mahkamah ini dengan Laporan Pakar oleh SD2-1. Ini kerana SD2-1 telah memeriksa specimen signatures Plaintif yang terkandung dalam – • 16 original investment application forms • 1 original new investor form-individual • 2 original suitability assessment forms • 3 original request for redemption SD2-1 telah memeriksa questioned signatures Plaintif yang terkandung dalam – • 16 original request for redemption forms • 5 original request for switching forms S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 [58] Mahkamah ini mendapati pemeriksaan yang dilakukan oleh SD2-1 adalah menepati kehendak pertikaian pihak-pihak mengenai tandatangan Plaintif iaitu “to determine whether the questioned signatures of Dato’ Muhammad Hafidz bin Nuruddin on the 16 request for redemption forms (i.e., Q1 to Q16) and the 5 request for switching forms (i.e., Q17 to Q21) are of the same authorship as the specimen signatures or otherwise.”. Berbanding dengan SP-3 yang hanya memeriksa dan menganalisa “based on photocopied questioned signatures.”, maka ketepatan dan kejituan rumusan SP-3 adalah kurang tepat. Tambahan pula, rumusan oleh SP-3 menyatakan bahawa “Original documents need to be submitted for confirmation”. Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa Plaintif ada meminta agar dokumen asal dikemukakan untuk diperiksa di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. Namun, Defendan kedua mencadangkan agar syarat yang ditetapkan diikuti. Jabatan Kimia Malaysia mnolak cadangan tersebut, maka hal perkara dokumen asal terhenti di peringkat cadangan sahaja. [59] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati keterangan pasukan Defendan Kedua yang memeriksa dokumen dan selanjutnya meluluskan penebusan/redemption pelaburan oleh Plaintif adalah berdasarkan kepada tandatangan pada “original new investor form-individual” yang disimpan oleh Defendan Kedua. Mahkamah ini mendapati Plaintif tidak memohon untuk mendapatkan dokumen asal mahupun mengemukakan dokumen pendua “original new investor form-individual” untuk diperiksa dan dianalisa oleh SP-3. Ini menyebabkan SP-3 tidak memeriksa dokumen penting ini iaitu “original new investor form-individual”. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 [60] Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa – “Plaintif tidak mempertikaikan pelaburan-pelaburan yang telah dibuat di dalam D2 tetapi Plaintif telah membangkitkan isu berkenaan wujudnya pemalsuan tandatangannya di atas Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang-Borang Pertukaran yang dipertikaikan sebagaimana di dalam kes ini. Pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif di atas Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang-Borang Pertukaran yang dipertikaikan tersebut telah berlaku dan ini telah dibuktikan dengan kukuh oleh Plaintif. … Plaintif mempertahankan hujahannya bahawa penemuan oleh SP3 yang tandatangan di atas Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang-Borang Pertukaran yang dipertikaikan tersebut adalah bukan tandatangan Plaintif, adalah konklusif dan terpakai. Plaintif juga mengekalkan hujahannya bahawa terdapat alasan-alasan kukuh dan munasabah yang menyokong tuntutan Plaintif bahawa D1 adalah orang yang telah melakukan pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif tersebut. Sebagaimana yang telah dihujahkan oleh Plaintif sebelum ini, Plaintif telah menafikan tandatangannya di atas Borang Request for Update of Investor Particulars bertarikh 8.4.2019, 2 Borang Suitability Assessment bertarikh 18.5.2018 dan 12.3.2019, Investment Application Forms & Additional Investment Forms followed by respective Statements of Transaction and the proof of posting bagi tarikh-tarikh 26.3.2019, 9.4.2020, 30.6.2020, S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 11.8.2020, 21.8.2020 dan 2.11.2020. Dokumen-dokumen tersebut telah hanya diterima oleh Plaintif sewaktu proses pertukaran dokumen antara pihak-pihak untuk penyediaan Ikatan Dokumen Bersama dan tidak pernah dibuktikan telah diberikan oleh D1 dan/atau D2 pada bila-bila masa selepas Plaintif mula membuat aduannya kepada D2 melalui surat bertarikh 15.4.2022 tersebut. Apa yang dapat dilihat berdasarkan pertikaian Plaintif ke atas tandatangannya di atas dokumen-dokumen D2-2 hingga D2-4 tersebut adalah perkara ini telahpun dilakukan oleh D1 selama ini tanpa pengetahuan Plaintif. Kesemua ini dilakukan oleh D1 dalam kedudukannya sebagai UTC yang mengendalikan pelaburan kliennya iaitu Plaintif. Ini bukanlah sekadar “bare allegation” atau “bare denial” oleh Plaintif tetapi Plaintif telah dengan benarnya membuktikan dan menunjukkan kepada Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini bagaimana tandatangan yang ada pada dokumen-dokumen yang dipertikaikan tersebut adalah berbeza dengan tandatangan Plaintif yang sebenar.”. [61] Hujahan peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif berkenaan dengan pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif yang dilakukan oleh Defendan Pertama pada Borang-Borang tersebut telah pun menggunakan pakar masing- masing. Berdasarkan keterangan dokumentar saksi pakar dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif gagal mencapai tahap “on balance of probabilities. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 [62] Menurut peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif, Plaintif telahpun membuktikan kecuaian Defendan Pertama iaitu berdasarkan keterangan yang berikut: • apabila Defendan Pertama sendiri telah mengakui bahawa antara tanggungjawabnya sebagai UTC adalah merupakan tanggungjawabnya untuk memaklumkan Plaintif akan perkembangan pelaburannya dari semasa ke semasa. • Plaintif telah hanya berurusan dengan Defendan Pertama yang pada waktu material tersebut adalah merupakan UTC yang mengendalikan pelaburan Plaintif di Defendan Kedua tersebut. • Justeru ianya telah diwujudkan dan/atau ditetapkan daripada awal lagi bahawa apa-apa urusan berkenaan pelaburan Plaintif di Defendan Kedua tersebut adalah melalui Defendan Pertama dan apa-apa maklumat dan perkembangan juga semestinyalah melalui Defendan Pertama. [63] Mahkamah ini memutuskan rumusan Plaintif bahawa kecuaian Defendan Pertama telah berjaya dibuktikan sebagaimana perenggan [61] di atas adalah suatu rumusan yang cetek. Hal perkara mengenai pelaburan termasuk prestasi naik dan turun wang pelaburan Plaintif dengan Defendan Kedua adalah dalam skop tugas Defendan Pertama. Apabila Plaintif ingin menebus Dana pelaburannya, proses penebusan bukanlah dibuat secara automatik seperti penggunaan kad ATM. Di sini, borang perlu diisi, ditandatangani dan diserahkan kepada Defendan Kedua. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 [64] Pada peringkat Defendan Kedua, Mahkamah ini telah mendengar keterangan saksi Defendan Kedua iaitu peringkat Senior Manager (SD2- 2), Assistant General Manager (SD2-3), 3 orang Assistant Managers (SD2-4, SD2-7 dan SD2-9), 2 orang Deputy Managers (SD2-5 dan SD2- 8), dan 4 orang Senior Executives (SD2-6, SD2-10, SD2-11 dan SD2-12), yang mana kesemua saksi Defendan Kedua telah meneliti, menyemak, memproses dan meluluskan permohonan Plaintif bagi penebusan (redemption). [65] Surat Defendan Kedua bertarikh 5-5-2022 menunjukkan bahawa Defendan Kedua telah menerangkan dan sebagai membalas pertanyaan Plaintif mengenai perkara transaksi pelaburan (investments) berjumlah RM19,826,039.27 dan transaksi penebusan (redemptions) di mana hasil penebusan ialah berjumlah RM19,025,203.44. Hal perkara mengenai redemption proceeds yang dikreditkan ke akaun Plaintif berdaftar dengan Defendan Kedua adalah fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan. [66] Apa yang dipertikaikan oleh Plaintif ialah tindakan Defendan Pertama yang membuat redemption dan switching accounts tanpa kebenaran Plaintif dan dibuat secara sembrono. Seterusnya, berbangkitlah isu pemalsuan tandatangan. [67] Hujahan peguam cara terpelajar Defendan Pertama adalah − “Defendan-Defendan telah tunjukkan kepada mahkamah yang mulia ini bahawa daripada keterangan dan pembuktian yang dibentangkan di dalam perbicaraan bahawa: S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 (a) Wang-wang penebusan dari pelaburan dalam unit amanah D2 semuanya dimasukkan ke dalam akaun Plaintif sendiri dan ia tidak dinafikan; (b) Penebusan terakhir mempunyai bukti kukuh dan sokongan secara koroboratif (corroboration) bahawa Plaintif mengetahui jumlah baki pelaburan sebelum ia ditebus; (c) Tiada bukti bahawa setiap penebusan pelaburan Plaintif itu memberi manfaat kepada D1, bahkan ia menyebabkan D1 kehilangan elaun, bonus, reputasi dan pendapatan (komisyen) daripada pelaburan Plaintif. Dengankata lain, penebusan pelaburan akan merugikan D1; (d) Justeru selaku seorang profesional dan mempunyai perniagaan sendiri serta pengalaman di dalam bidang korporat, Plaintif sudah tentu mempunyai pengetahuan luas dan maklumat-maklumat berkenaan jenis-jenis pelaburan beserta risiko yang berkait dengannya, serta bagaimana setiap pelaburan itu boleh disemak.”. [68] Hujahan peguam cara terpelajar Defendan Pertama ini diterima oleh Mahkamah. Ini kerana urusan dan pengendalian pelaburan Plaintif adalah dilakukan oleh Defendan Pertama yang bertindak sebagai ejen dan UTC kepada Plaintif. Hubungan di antara Plaintif (pelabur) dengan UTCnya iaitu Defendan Pertama membawa kepada hubungan yang lebih daripada hubungan secara professional. Dalam pembelaan Defendan Pertama ada memplidkan mengenai tindakan undang-undang ini diambil oleh Plaintif apabila Defendan Pertama enggan mengahwini Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 [69] Namun begitu, Mahkamah ini tidak perlu terpengaruh dengan hal perkara yang di luar kausa tindakan mengenai kecuaian Defendan- Defendan, pecah amanah, dan pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif. [70] Defendan Kedua yang menerima aduan Plaintif juga telah bertindak dengan menyatakan bahawa “We also wish to inform that we have removed UTC Intan Syafinaz binti Rejab from all of your investment accounts. Should you wish to appoint a new servicing UTC, please provide us the name of your preferred UTC.”. [71] Walau bagaimanapun, hayat pelaburan Plaintif dengan Defendan Kedua telah berakhir di mana melalui Surat Defendan Kedua bertarikh 26-5-2022, Defendan Kedua menyatakan bahawa “We wish to inform you that based on our records: You have fully redeemed all of your unit trust investment accounts and you no longer have any investment accounts with units (zero balance). The redemption proceeds have been banked- in to your bank accounts registered in our records.”. [72] Lebih kurang 7 bulan selepas Surat Defendan Kedua bertarikh 26- 5-2022 itu, Plaintif memfailkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-Defendan. [73] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti jawapan Plaintif kepada pembelaan Defendan Pertama dan penegasan Plaintif bahawa “Plaintif mempunyai tuntutan dan/atau kausa tindakan yang munasabah terhadap Defendan Pertama dan adalah tersokong oleh fakta yang jelas dan telah diperincikan serta bukti yang benar yang mana akan dikemukakan sewaktu perbicaraan kelak” berjaya disangkal oleh keterangan Defendan-Defendan. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 46 [74] Mahkamah ini tidak menafikan hak Plaintif yang membuat aduan kepada Defendan Kedua atas dasar Plaintif sebagai individu yang berhak dalam menuntut haknya, serta melalui saluran sewajarnya dan/atau proses undang-undang yang betul. Namun begitu, apabila berada dalam gelanggang di dalam Mahkamah, Plaintif hendaklah menuntut haknya dengan mengemukakan bukti yang benar dan betul iaitu mengenai kerugian yang dialaminya sebanyak RM1,261,957.10 adalah disebabkan tindakan dan perbuatan Defendan-Defendan. [75] Peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif menghujahkan bahawa tiada apa- apa yang mengelirukan mengenai keterangan Plaintif. Plaintif telah secara konsisten dan jelasnya mengemukakan asas berkenaan tuntutannya terhadap Defendan-Defendan. Plaintif telah dengan jelas membuktikan kegagalan Defendan-Defendan dalam membuktikan perkara-perkara berikut: (a) Wujud perbincangan dan/atau perbualan antara D1 dan Plaintif berkenaan tandatangan Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang-Borang Pertukaran Yang Dipertikaikan iaitu D2- 5 dan D2-7; (b) Yang mana satukah di antara Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang-Borang Pertukaran yang dipertikaikan tersebut yang telah ditandatangani oleh Plaintif secara “pre-signed”. Plaintif ulangi hujahan berkenaan isu “pre-signed” ini; S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 47 (c) Wujud apa-apa persetujuan atau kebenaran diberikan oleh Plaintif kepada D1 untuk mana-mana pihak lain menandatangani Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang- Borang Pertukaran yang dipertikaikan tersebut; (d) D1 telah memaklumkan dan/atau mendapatkan pengesahan dan/atau kebenaran Plaintif sebelum Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang-Borang Pertukaran yang dipertikaikan tersebut diserahkan dan/atau dikemukakan kepada D2 untuk diproses; (e) D1 telah memaklumkan dan/atau mengesahkan kepada Plaintif berkenaan Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang- Borang Pertukaran yang dipertikaikan tersebut selepas ianya diserahkan dan/atau dikemukakan kepada D2 untuk diproses; (f) Plaintif yang telah menandatangani Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang-Borang Pertukaran yang dipertikaikan tersebut; (g) D1 telah memaklumkan dan/atau mengesahkan kepada Plaintif berkenaan apa-apa dokumen yang dikatakan telah dihantar oleh D2 ke C-18-3, Infiniti 3, Jalan Seri Wangsa 2, Wangsa Maju, 43300 Kuala Lumpur (“Alamat Wangsa Maju”) yang D1 sendiri telah sahkan didiami oleh D1 pada waktu material tersebut; S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 48 (h) D1 telah mendapatkan kebenaran dan/atau persetujuan Plaintif untuk menukar menukar butir-butir alamat Plaintif daripada No. 3, Jalan Silat Sendeng 11/3C, 40100 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan (“Alamat Shah Alam Plaintif”) ke Alamat Wangsa Maju tersebut; (i) D1 telah memaklumkan dan/atau mengesahkan kepada Plaintif berkenaan pertukaran butir-butir alamat Plaintif daripada Alamat Shah Alam Plaitif ke Alamat Wangsa Maju tersebut; (j) Plaintif yang telah menandatangani Borang “Request for Update Investor Particulars” iaitu Borang D2-2 tersebut. Sebaliknya, D1 mengakui yang D1 telah mengisi Borang D2- 2 tersebut. (k) D1 telah memaklumkan berkenaan status-status akaun Plaintif dengan D2; (l) D2 telah mendapatkan pengesahan secara terus daripada Plaintif berkenaan perubahan Alamat Shah Alam Plaintif ke Alamat Wangsa Maju tersebut; (m) D2 telah memastikan apa-apa dokumen yang mempunyai tandatangan pelabur adalah sebenar-benarnya telah ditandatangani oleh pelabur yang mana dalam kes ini adalah Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 49 [76] Dapatan Mahkamah mengenai isu Borang-Borang Penebusan dan Borang-Borang Pertukaran Yang Dipertikaikan adalah dijawab dengan jelas oleh Defendan-Defendan. Plaintif hanya bergantung sepenuhnya kepada keterangannya sendiri, manakala 2 lagi saksinya iaitu SP-1 dan SP-3 itu gagal menyokong keterangan Plaintif. [77] Selain Defendan Pertama, wujud individu lain yang mengemukakan Borang-Borang Plaintif kepada Defendan Pertama iaitu PA Agency. Individu ini tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi. [78] Berkenaan dengan pertukaran alamat yang dinyatakan itu, Mahkamah ini mendapati surat Defendan Kedua kepada Plaintif yang mempunyai maklum balas dan maklumat penting mengenai pelaburan, penebusan, removal of Defendan Pertama as Plaintiff’s UTC dan status akaun pelaburan Plaintif adalah menggunakan alamat Shah Alam Plaintif. Selain itu, pada Borang New Investor juga mempunyai alamat e-mel untuk Defendan Kedua menghubungi Plaintif. Begitu juga, penyata pelaburan boleh dilihat pada Public Mutual online. Oleh itu, isu alamat bukanlah faktor relevan mengenai kecuaian Defendan Pertama untuk mengemaskinikan maklumat pelaburan Plaintif. [79] Tuntutan tort kecuaian yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif bahawa Defendan Pertama gagal mengemaskini dan cuai untuk memberi maklumat terkini secara tetap (regularly) perkembangan pelaburan; mengendalikan dan/atau menguruskan akaun Plaintif di Defendan Kedua sesuka hati tanpa kebenaran bagi (swithching account) dan melakukan penebusan (redemption) dan Defendan Pertama meminta-minta pinjaman dan gagal memulangkannya dan meminta-minta hadiah. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 50 Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Defendan-Defendan berjaya menyangkal dam mematahkan tuntutan Plaintif. [80] Peguam cara terpelajar Defendan Kedua menyatakan bahawa Plaintif juga mempunyai suatu guaman No.: BA-22NCC-70-06/2022 terhadap Defendan Pertama sahaja berkenaan dengan pinjaman perniagaan (perniagaan tas tangan/handbag) dan pinjaman persahabatan (friendly loan) yang Defendan terhutang kepada Plaintif adalah RM1,506.423.00. Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam NCvC4 menetapkan perbicaraan penuh pada bulan Mac 2024. [81] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini tidak perlu memutuskan mengenai kegagalan Defendan Pertama untuk memulangkan wang Plaintif dan perbuatan Defendan Pertama yang meminta-minta hadiah. Ganti rugi yang dipohon oleh Plaintif: [82] Plaintif memohon terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua secara bersesama dan/atau berasingan untuk membayar kepada Plaintif jumlah kerugian bernilai RM 1,261,957.10; Ganti rugi Am; faedah statutori sebanyak 5% setahun ke atas jumlah penghakiman dan/atau perintah Mahkamah ini dikira daripada tarikh penghakiman dan/atau perintah sehingga penyelesaian penuh; dan kos. [83] Pada perenggan 22 pernyataan tuntutan, Plaintif mengira kerugian kerugian keuntungan dan/atau pendapatan sebanyak RM 1,261,957.10 yang mana butir-butir dan/atau pengiraan adalah seperti berikut: S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 51 No. Butir-butir Jumlah 22.1. Jumlah pelaburan dalam Defendan Kedua RM19,826,039.27 22.2. Jumlah penebusan RM19,025,203.44 22.3. Jumlah kerugian akibat daripada penebusan yang disahkan oleh Defendan Kedua sendiri RM19,826,039.27 (-) RM19,025,203.44 = RM800,835.83 22.4. Jumlah kerugian keuntungan akibat daripada 16 penebusan secara salah dan tanpa kebenaran Plaintif 57.58% (purata peratusan prestasi dana dikira daripada tarikh pelaburan sehingga 31.12.2021) ke atas jumlah RM800,835.83 = RM461,121.27 22.5. Jumlah besar tuntutan RM800,835.83+ RM461,121.27 =RM1,261,957.10 [84] Selepas meneliti dan menilai satu persatu keterangan pihak Plaintif, khususnya Plaintif sendiri sebagai pelabur yang melabur pada amaun yang besar dalam dana unit amanah dengan Defendan Kedua melalui ejen/UTC Plaintif sendiri iaitu Defendan Pertama dengan jelas telah melakukan pelaburan. Hak Plaintif untuk menebus pelaburannya juga dibenarkan oleh Defendan Kedua selepas memastikan S.O.P dan pemprosesan yang teratur. Hasil penebusan dikreditkan ke akaun Plaintif yang didaftarkan dengan Defendan Kedua. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 52 [85] Mahkamah ini mendapati tiada jadual dan/atau penyata akaun bank yang mana hasil penebusan dikreditkan. Plaintif hanya mengira kerugiannya yang dialaminya akibat 16 penebusan secara salah dan tanpa kebenaran Plaintif tetapi keuntungan melalui “wang masuk” tidak pula Plaintif tunjukkan dalam pernyataan tuntutannya. [86] Berdasarkan keterangan Defendan Pertama sendiri yang menjadi UTC Plaintif, pasukan Defendan Kedua yang memproses penebusan dan saksi pakar yang menjelaskan mengenai isu pemalsuan tandatangan Plaintif, Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa Plaintif gagal membuktikan tuntutannya. [87] Berkenaan dengan perenggan 22.4 pada jadual di atas iaitu − 57.58% (purata peratusan prestasi dana dikira daripada tarikh pelaburan sehingga 31.12.2021) ke atas jumlah RM800,835.83 Keterangan Plaintif sendiri menyatakan bahawa pengiraan itu dibuat oleh kawannya dan kawan itu tidak dipanggil memberikan keterangan untuk menjelaskan mengenai purata peratusan prestasi dana dikira daripada tarikh pelaburan sehingga 31.12.2021 ialah sebanyak RM 461,121.27. [88] Jumlah besar tuntutan yang diplidkan Plaintif sebanyak RM1,261,957.10 gagal dibuktikan oleh Plaintif. Segala pelaburan dan penebusan adalah atas kehendak dan arahan Plaintif sendiri kepada Defendan Pertama yang bertindak sebagai UTC Plaintif. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 53 [89] Walaupun Defendan Pertama telah dikeluarkan (removed) daripada menjadi ejen dan UTC dengan Defendan Kedua, sebab musabab Defendan Kedua itu tidak boleh menjadikan Defendan Pertama bertanggungan sepenuhnya ke atas kerugian yang diplidkan oleh Plaintif. Defendan Pertama telah mematuhi arahan Plaintif untuk menebus (redeem) walaupun tindakan tersebut boleh menjejaskan komisen dll yang bakal diraih oleh Defendan Pertama sekiranya pelaburan Plaintif kekal dengan Defendan Kedua. [90] Keterangan saksi-saksi di pihak Defendan Kedua telah menjelaskan mengenai setiap transaksi penebusan yang dibuat dan Plaintif dimaklumkan (alert) mengenainya. Tiada apa-apa kecuaian dilakukan oleh Defendan Kedua. [91] Pembelaan Defendan-Defendan bermerit dan bukan merupakan suatu fikiran terkemudian yang bertujuan untuk menafikan dan/atau melengahkan hak Plaintif yang sah di sisi undang-undang. [92] Mahkamah ini memetik keputusan dalam kes Chang Hang Guan & Ors. V. Perumahan Falim (Penang) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 CLJ 19, Edgar Joseph Jr memutuskan− “When a plaintiff claims damages from a defendant, he has to show that the loss in respect of which he claims damages was caused by the defendant’s wrong and also that the damages are not too remote to be recoverable. Where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects to have it, where it is not, the court must do the best it can. General difficulty of proof does not dispense with the necessity for proof.”. S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 54 [93] Mahkamah juga memetik suatu perenggan dalam buku Mc Gregor on Damages (16th Ed, 1997) at page 287− “The primary object of an award of damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the harm done to him; a possible secondary object is to punish the defendant for his conduct in inflicting that harm. Such a secondary object can be achieved by awarding, in addition to the normal compensatory damages, damaged which are variously called exemplary damages, punitive damages, vindictive damages or even retributory damages, and comes into play whenever the defendant’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence or the like.”. Kesimpulan [94] Berdasarkan penelitian Mahkamah ini selepas meneliti semua dokumen, keterangan lisan dan dokumentar yang dibentangkan oleh pihak-pihak di hadapan Mahkamah ini, dan hujahan bertulis serta hujahan balasan pihak-pihak, Mahkamah ini mendapati atas imbangan kebarangkalian, tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan-Defendan adalah ditolak dengan kos. Bertarikh: 21 Disember 2023. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam NCvC12 S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 55 Peguam cara: Bagi pihak Plaintif: Sara Idylla binti Isbah Tetuan Ahmad Rizal, Sara Idylla & Co., Puchong, Selangor Bagi pihak Defendan Pertama: Aedyla bin Bokari Tetuan Nassir Hafiz & Rahim, Kuala Lumpur Bagi pihak Defendan Kedua: Poh Choo Hoe bersama-sama dengannya Tiang Min Min Tetuan Shook Lin & Bok, Kuala Lumpur S/N ENKSzR9LJkGmj4hSoVAqUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2021

PLAINTIF AUSTIN POWDER ASIA PACIFIC INC. DEFENDAN TROPICANA CORPORATION BERHAD

Practice and Procedure – Amendments of pleadings – Statement of claim – Applicable principles – Delay – Altering character of suit – Prejudice – Traditional liberal approach versus new robust approach – Rules of Court 2012, Order 20 rule 5.

21/12/2023

YA Dr Choong Yeow Choy

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bfbf0a0e-e5f7-4296-ad4e-7b24b02e00b5&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: BA-22NCVC-138-03/2021 ANTARA AUSTIN POWDER ASIA PACIFIC INC. … PLAINTIF DAN TROPICANA CORPORATION BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 197901003695) … DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The rules of court confer wide discretionary powers on the Courts to permit applications by litigants to amend their writs and pleadings. The provisions governing this aspect of practice and procedure are couched in liberal terms. Be that as it may, it is commonplace that in exercising these discretionary powers, the Courts are bound by established principles and are predisposed to the factual matrix of the case before them. [2] The present application concerns an application by the Plaintiff to amend its statement of claim. This necessitates a consideration by this 21/12/2023 12:16:28 BA-22NCvC-138-03/2021 Kand. 97 S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Court of the applicable principles and the grounds and facts in support of and against the application. The Overriding Issue [3] The primary issue for determination in this present matter is whether the application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 72 to amend its statement of claim ought to be allowed. [4] Arising from the above are the followings subsidiary issues, namely; (a) Whether there has been a delay on the part of the Plaintiff in making this application; (b) Whether the amendment is bona fide; (c) Whether the amendment will change the character of the pleaded case; and (d) Whether this amendment will prejudice the Defendant and cannot be compensated by costs. The Nature of Amendments Sought and the Justifications in Support of the Application [5] It is the Plaintiff’s case that the proposed amendments in the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim are merely “grammatical amendments” and of ensuring “completeness and further accuracy in the pleaded facts”. S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [6] The amendments sought are also justified on the ground of “recent developments that have emerged” after the filing of the suit. [7] The Plaintiff contends that since the amendments are not substantial in nature, the Defendant would not suffer any prejudice if leave to amend the Statement of Claim is granted. In any event, the Defendant can be compensated with costs. [8] It should be noted that the Statement of Claim was dated 29 March, 2021. This application in Enclosure 72 to amend the Statement of Claim was only filed on 19 June, 2023. [9] The Plaintiff seeks to justify the delay in the filing of its application to amend the Statement of Claim on the basis that by an Order dated 13 June, 2022, this Court had granted the Plaintiff leave to file the Plaintiff’s Further Affidavit in respect of the Defendant’s application marked as Enclosure 10 to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim. According to the Plaintiff, that Further Affidavit addressed the facts that form the basis of the recent developments that give rise to the proposed amendments in paragraphs 17A to 17G and 30A to 30C of the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim. [10] The Plaintiff went on to explain that these proposed amendments in paragraphs 17A to 17G and 30A to 30C of the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim seek to align the pleadings with the said evidence in the Plaintiff’s Further Affidavit and to bring the Statement of Claim up to date with the related subsequent developments following the disposal of Enclosure 10. S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [11] The new paragraphs that the Plaintiff seek to include in its Proposed Amended Statement of Claim are as follows: 17A. By letter dated 14.6.2021, SMEO informed Austin Powder Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (“Austin Powder Malaysia”) (formerly known as Tenaga Kimia Sdn. Bhd, in which the Plaintiff is the majority shareholder), amongst others, that the termination of the Lease Agreement “…shall remain and continue to be intact binding and enforceable”. 17B. On or around 2.3.2022, discussions began between SMEO and Austin Powder Malaysia on the possible execution of a new lease agreement. 17C. In a complete reversal from the communications by SMEO on the termination of the Lease Agreement, where it was clearly and repeatedly represented that there was no way to avoid the said termination of the Lease Agreement, SMEO initiated the concept and discussions that gave rise to proposals and counter-proposals exchanged on the proposed new lease agreement. 17D. The discussions ultimately resulted in the execution of a new lease agreement between SMEO and Austin Powder Malaysia on 22.8.2022 (“New Lease Agreement”). 17E. Under the New Lease Agreement, Austin Powder Malaysia is permitted to remain on the Land until 28.2.2023. 17F. Further, the only operations of the Plaint that would remain on the Land are the detonator plant, explosives storage magazines, administrative buildings, workshops and parking lots. These limited operations of the Plant were not relocatable to the District of Bentong, Mukim Bentong, State of Pahang (“Bentong Land”), formerly owned by the Exploblast, duse to the differences in the terrain between the Land and the Bentong Land. S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 17G. The rationale behind the execution of the New Lease Agreement was principally as follows: 17G.1 The New Lease Agreement would enable the limited parts of the Plant that are not relocatable to the Bentong Land to remain and continue operations on the Land. But for the New Lease Agreement, these limited operations would have had to cease upon termination of the Lease Agreement; and 17G.2 Thus, the New Lease Agreement would enable Austin Powder Malaysia to continue operation on the Land in respect of certain limited production assets related to the parts of the Plant that are not relocatable to the Bentong Land and, further, maintain a strategic location for distribution. 30A. Further, and/or in the alternative. the Plaintiff’s compliance with the pre- conditions under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Corporate Guarantee read with Clause 7.1 of the Supplement to the SPA (to recover from the Defendant the RM25.000.000.00 in costs of relocation) remains to be valid notwithstanding the execution of the New lease Agreement and the matters related thereto, as pleaded at paragraphs 17A to 17G hereinabove. 30B. Clause 7.1 of the Supplement to the SPA requires the fulfilment of the following: 30B.1 The issuance and taking effect of a notice of termination to terminate the Lease Agreement prior to 1.3.2023; 30B.2 The physical relocation of the Plant or any part(s) thereof due to the termination of the [Lease Agreement; and S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 30B.3 The incurrent of costs by the Plaintiff from the relocation of the Plaintiff or any part(s) thereof due to the termination of the Lease Agreement prior to 1.3.2023 30C. The Plaintiff claim under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Corporate Guarantee satisfies each of the elements for a valid claim under Clause 7.1 of the Supplement to the SPA pleaded at paragraph 30B hereinabove notwithstanding the execution of the New [ease Agreement in view of the following: 30C.1 The requirement of the issuance and taking effect of a notice of termination to terminate the Lease Agreement prior to 1.3.2023 remains satisfied because: (i) The execution of the New Lease Agreement does not nullify the express and final termination of the Lease Agreement by SMEO in 2018. resulting in Austin Powder Malavsia’s purchase of Exploblast’s business and assets to facilitate the timely relocation from the Land and meet the deadline to deliver vacant possession of the Land: and (ii) Under Clause 7.1 of the Supplement to the SP/a, the issuance of the notice of termination by SMEO gives rise to a valid claim for costs of relocation if the Plaintiff is required to relocate the Plant from the Land and consequently incurs relocation costs as a result thereof. In this regards, the relocation of an explosives plant involves fa process of substantial complexity and a significant amount of time and planning. The process entails, amongst others, the securing of a suitable alternative site from which the plant is to operate, the relocation of the multiple components of the plant and securing the required licenses and regulatory S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 approvals for the operation of the plant at the site to which it is to be relocated. Such a process cannot reasonably be understood to occur over a short time period. 30C.2 The requirement of the physical relocation of the Plant remains satisfied because; (i) The Plaintiff had relied upon the termination of the Lease Agreement by incurring and continuing to incur substantial costs in the relocation of the bulk emulsion plant, the packaged emulsion plant and part of its magazine storage operations to the Bentong Land: (ii) The process and substantial costs involved in relocation the bulk emulsion plant, the packaged emulsion plant and part of its magazine storage operations to the Bentong Land would not have been initiated by the Plaintiff but for the termination of the Lease Agreement; and (iii) The New Lease Agreement does not impact, alter or reverse in any way the Plaintiff’s process of relocation the bulk emulsion plant, packaged emulsion plant and part of its magazine storage operations to the Bentong Land because the said process is permanent and irrevocable. 30C.3 The requirement of the incurrence of costs by the Plaintiff from the relocation of the Plant or any part(s) thereof due to the termination of the Lease Agreement prior to 1.3.2023 remains satisfied because: S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (i) The Plaintiff had relied, and continues to rely, to its financial detriment, on the termination of the Lease Agreement, a risk for which the parties to the Lease Agreement expressly provided a remedy, in relocating as much of the Plant as can be feasibly relocated, to the Bentong Land; (ii) In the above regard, the Plaintiff has spent, and continues to spend considerable time and resources to relocate its bulk emulsion plant, packaged emulsion plant and part of its magazine storage operations from the Land to the Bentong Land; and (iii) The execution of the New Lease Agreement does not impact, alter or reverse in any way, the costs already and to be incurred to effect the relocation. [12] In addition to the above submissions, the Plaintiff also states that the proposed amendments in the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim do not turn the pleaded case from one character into a pleaded case of another and inconsistent character. [13] The Plaintiff also asserts that the amendments in the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim are bona fide in nature and the objective is to enable this Court to adjudicate and determine on all matters and issues in controversy between the parties effectively. [14] Finally, the Plaintiff also underscores the fact that leave to amend pleadings can be granted at any stage of the proceedings. S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 The Case Against the Granting of Leave [15] In opposing the amendments sought, the Defendant has raised the following arguments, that is: • the Plaintiff had only on 19 June, 2023 (after more than one year of the alleged new events taking place), filed this application to amend the Statement of Claim; • all preparations for trial had taken place and cause papers for trial had been filed; and • this application to amend the Statement of Claim is made two years and three months, that is, 27 months after the filing of the Statement of Claim. Hence, the crux of the Defendant’s submission is that the Plaintiff has delayed in filing this application to amend as the alleged new events had taken place in March 2022 but this application was only filed after a lapse of more than a year. [16] The Defendant also relied on the grounds that – • the proposed amendment was not bona fide; and • the proposed amendments change the nature of the pleaded case. S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 The Law and the Applicable Principles [17] The legal principles in relation to Amendment of Pleadings are trite. [18] Both parties have referred to Order 20 rule 5(1) of the RC 2012 and the leading cases, in particular, Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [1983] CLJ 428; [1983] 1 MLJ 213; [1982] 1 MLRA 417 (“Yamaha Motor Co”) and Hong Leong Finance Berhad v Low Thiam Hoe [2015] 8 CLJ 1; [2016] 1 MLJ 301; [2016] 3 MLRA 81 (“Hong Leong Finance”). [19] It bears reiteration that while Yamaha Motor Co remains as good law, the grounds or circumstances adumbrated therein are not exhaustive. In view of the new case management regime that is now in place, this Court is bound to follow and apply the approach as laid down in Hong Leong Finance. [20] The current and prevailing approach that the Courts in this country ought to adopt when confronted with an application for leave by a party to amend a writ or pleading, may be summed up as follows. [21] Leave to amend writ or pleadings ought to be granted unless • the amendment is not bona fide; • the amendment will cause prejudice which cannot be compensated by costs; S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 • the amendment will turn the suit from one character into a suit of another and inconsistent character; • the amendment is one which is futile or frivolous; • the amendment is to withdraw an admission consciously made; • the amendment is made after an inordinate and inexcusable delay; • the amendment is to raise a cause of action which only accrued to the plaintiff after the action had been commenced; • the amendment is to add a party after limitation has set in; or • the amendment is to add a cause of action after limitation has set in. [22] Save for the last two exceptions, which are provided for in Order 20 rule 5(2) – (5) of the Rules of Court 2012, the rest are expounded through case law. It should be added that the last exception is subject to further exceptions (see Order 20 rule 5(5) of the Rules of Court 2012). [23] In other words, the above serve as exceptions to the general rule that adopts the liberal approach in permitting courts to grant leave to parties to amend their writ and pleadings. This general rule, which has been codified in the provisions of the Rules of Court 2021, is derived from the traditional liberal approach as laid down in cases such as Tildesley v S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Harper (1878) 10 Ch D 393, Clarapede & Co v Commercial Union Association (1883) 32 WR 262 and Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700. [24] However, the Federal Court in Hong Leong Finance has totally disregarded the traditional liberal approach and emphasized the adoption of a fresh robust and less accommodating approach, particularly in cases involving a delay. This Court is bound by the edict laid down by the apex court. The Decision of this Court [25] In considering this application in Enclosure 72, foremost in my mind is whether the Defendant has succeeded in establishing that one of the exceptions for refusal to grant leave to amend writ or pleadings is applicable to the present case. In order to succeed, the Defendant need only demonstrate the applicability of any one of these exceptions to the present application. [26] Having analysed the cause papers, the authorities cited by the parties and applying the established principles to the facts in this case, this Court of the considered view that this application made • after a delay of more than one year after the alleged new events that taken place; and • after all preparations for trial had taken place and the cause papers for trial had been filed; and S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 • after three Case Management Conferences before me had taken place in Chambers, would alone be sufficient ground to disallow the application in Enclosure 72. [27] This application in Enclosure 72 is hereby dismissed with costs. [28] The Plaintiff to pay costs of RM10,000 to the Defendant, subject to allocator. Dated: 21 December, 2023 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Gregory Das for the Plaintiff (Messrs. Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership) Parvinder Kaur Sandhu for the Defendant (Messrs. Jasbeer Nur & Lee) S/N Dgq/v/fllkKtTnsksC4AtQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-21NCvC-128-12/2022

PLAINTIF MOHD HATTA BIN SANURI DEFENDAN 1. ) Y.A.B Perdana Menteri Malaysia Ketujuh Tun Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamad 2. ) Y.A.B Perdana Menteri Malaysia Kelapan Tan Sri Dato'Haji Mahiaddin Bin Md Yasin 3. ) Y.A.B Menteri Ekonomi Jabatan Perdana Menteri Dato'Sri Mustapha Bin Mohamed 4. ) Y.B Menteri Pengangkutan Malaysia Datuk Seri Ir. Dr. Wee Ka Siong 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

The Plaintiff’s suit is struck out. The Defendants are awarded costs of RM10,000 to be paid forthwith.

20/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2a17942b-63a5-4944-a74f-fe183ac2a010&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL CASE NO: WA-21NCvC-128-12/2022 BETWEEN MOHD HATTA BIN SANURI (NRIC No: 760314-10-5385) …. PLAINTIFF AND 1. YAB PERDANA MENTERI MALAYSIA KETUJUH TUN DR. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD 2. YAB PERDANA MENTERI MALAYSIA KELAPAN TAN SRI DATO’ HAJI MAHIADDIN BIN HJ MD YASIN 3. YB MENTERI EKONOMI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI DATO’ SRI MUSTAPHA BIN MOHAMED 4. YB MENTERI PENGANGKUTAN MALAYSIA DATUK SERI IR. DR WEE KA SEONG 20/12/2023 13:57:35 WA-21NCvC-128-12/2022 Kand. 65 S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 5. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA .… DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Enc 14: Defendants’ application to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) and/or (b) and/or (d) Rules of Court 2012 Introduction [1] Before this Court is a matter that piques the public’s interest and constitutional import. The Plaintiff, a citizen, has boldly stepped forward to challenge a decision made by the administration and the government, a decision that allegedly resulted in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' moneys. This case, at its core, not only questions the stewardship of public funds but also the very pillars of administrative accountability and governmental responsibility. [2] The gravity of the allegations cannot be understated. The Plaintiff contended that the decision in question was not only imprudent but also lacked the necessary legal and procedural sanctity expected in the administration of public affairs. Such assertions, if proven, strike at the heart of democratic governance and the rule of law. The citizen’s action, while arguably noble in its pursuit of governmental accountability, must nonetheless be scrutinized under the unforgiving lens of legal legitimacy. Central to this deliberation is the concept of 'locus standi' - the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. The principle of locus standi ensures that only those with sufficient interest in a case's outcome S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 are permitted to bring a lawsuit. It is a fundamental doctrine designed to prevent the courts from being flooded with cases brought by individuals or entities with no legal stake in the proceedings. [3] In this context, the Plaintiff’s locus standi becomes a pivotal aspect of our determination. The court is tasked with the intricate balancing act of upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law, while simultaneously safeguarding the democratic process from being undermined by litigations lacking a legitimate legal basis. The Plaintiff’s suit [4] To assess the Defendants’ application to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim (Enc 14), the Court turns to the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (SoC) that was authored for 63 pages. He cited negligence and misfeasance in public office on the part of the Defendants for the alleged wrongful termination of the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail Project (the HSR Project) that resulted in compensation payment to the Government of Singapore. The amount of compensation payment pleaded against each of the Defendants differed. The First Defendant for nearly RM46,000,000 which was the same amount as that pleaded against the Third Defendant whilst the Second Defendant for RM320,270,519.24. Both the amounts were pleaded against the Fourth Defendant. [5] The Plaintiff claimed that it was an enormous economic loss and the denial of a first-class international level transportation that was expedient, safe, and affordable. His SoC iterated the chronology of the birth of the idea of the HSR Project until para 41 at page 22 where it was pleaded that the First Defendant upon winning the 14th General Election on 9.5.2018 S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 had proposed on 28.5.2018 to terminate the HSR Project to reduce the nation’s debts. It was made known that the reason was that the HSR Project would incur enormous costs where the Malaysian public would not reap the benefits as reported. [6] The Plaintiff core allegation is that inappropriate, arbitrary termination of the HSR Project based on Defendants' personal interests rather than national interest unnecessarily resulted in major compensation costs paid by the Malaysian government and people. His SoC stated that the alleged mismanagement and the unnecessary compensation costs payments occurred as: 1. The First Defendant was negligent and abused his power when he postponed the HSR Project in 2018, resulting in Malaysia having to pay SGD15,000,000 (RM46,401,804.21) in abortive costs to Singapore. 2. The Second Defendant was negligent and abused his power when he refused to maintain the AssetsCo company in the HSR Project agreement with the Singaporean counterpart, which led to its termination in 2020. This resulted in Malaysia paying SGD103,000,000 (RM320,270,519.24) in compensation fees to Singapore. 3. The Plaintiff alleged the Second Defendant terminated the HSR Project just to replace it with a new KL-JB High Speed Rail Project that would benefit his personal or his political party’s interests, at the expense of Malaysian taxpayers. S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 4. The Third and Fourth Defendants were negligent in safeguarding the country's interests when they managed the HSR Project. 5. There were no reasonable grounds provided by the Defendants to justify terminating an otherwise beneficial project for Malaysia. The Plaintiff alleged that it was a non- transparent, bad faith decision. 6. The compensation and abortive costs were unnecessarily paid out from public funds due to the Defendants' actions, negatively impacting all taxpayers including the Plaintiff. [7] The Plaintiff sought the following declarations from this Court: (a) That the termination of the HSR Project announced by the Second Defendant was null and void; (b) That the payment of compensation RM46,000,000 to Singapore on 31.1.2019 as suspension costs was null and void; (c) That the First Defendant and other Defendants were negligent and committed omissions and tort of misfeasance in public office whilst serving as the Seventh Prime Minister of Malaysia and the ministry when the compensation payment of RM46,000,000 was paid to Singapore; S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (d) That the Second Defendant and other Defendants were negligent and committed omissions and tort of misfeasance in public office whilst serving as the Eighth Prime Minister of Malaysia and the ministry when the payment was made from the Malaysian taxpayers’ moneys in the sum of RM320,270,319.24 was paid to Singapore for the termination of the HSR Project without getting any profit and facilities through the HSR Project; (e) That the Defendants had committed negligence and omission, misrepresentation, betrayal and breach of trust towards all Malaysians including the Plaintiff when the Defendants suspended and then terminated the HSR Project which could have stimulated the economy of Malaysia with the creation of an estimation of 111,000 job opportunities by 2060; (f) That the Defendants pay back RM46,000,000 to the Fifth Defendant for the wrongful compensation which was paid to Singapore as suspension cost or order restitution of the same; and (g) That the Defendants pay back RM320,270,519.24 to the Fifth Defendant for the wrongful compensation that resulted from the wrongful and negligent actions of the Defendant in the termination of the HSR Project; (h) That the Defendants jointly and severally pay damages and compensation amounting to RM1,000,000 to each Malaysian including the Plaintiff for wrongfully and S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 negligently suspending the HSR Project and wasting Malaysians’ money in paying the compensation costs of RM320,270,519.24 for the termination of the HSR Project that they decided negligently; and (i) That the Defendants jointly and severally pay damages and compensation amounting to RM1,000,000 to each Malaysian including the Plaintiff for wrongfully and negligently terminating the HSR Project and wasting Malaysian’s money in paying the compensation cost of RM320,270,519.24 that they had decided negligently. [8] The Plaintiff sought the following orders from this Court: (a) That the Defendants resume the HSR Project taking into account the interest of Malaysians including the Plaintiff who would benefit from the transportation facilities at an international level and to generate the national economy in the future; (b) That the Defendants disclose the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Malaysia and Singapore on 19.7.2016 for the HSR Project; (c) That the Defendants pay damages to all Malaysians including the Plaintiff for the Tort of Misfeasance in Public Office, negligence and omission, misrepresentation, betrayal and breach of trust against all the Malaysians including the Plaintiff to be assessed by this Court; S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (d) That the Defendants pay aggravated and exemplary damages to all Malaysians including the Plaintiff in the sum of RM100,000 per person or any other amount to be assessed by the Court; (e) That the Defendants provide a written explanation as to why the Defendants made the decision to suspend the HSR Project on 21.5.2019 and subsequently terminate the HSR Project officially on 31.12.2020; (f) That the Third Defendant provide a written explanation on the amount spent by the Second Defendant throughout the HSR Project from 2018 to 2021 specifically involving payments (including the compensation for the HSR contract termination if any) to the companies that were officially appointed to carry out works related to the HSR Project; (g) That the Third Defendant provide a written explanation of the basis and formula used to pay Singapore the amount of RM320,270,519.24 as a result of the wrongful termination of the HSR Project and suspension costs of up to RM46,000,000; and (h) That the Defendants pay costs of this action to the Plaintiff on a client-solicitor basis. S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 The basis of the Defendants’ application to strike out the Plaintiff’s suit [9] The learned Senior Federal Counsel (SFC) professed that his team took a whole day to digest the SoC. The forefront basis of their application to strike out falls under limb (a) of Order 18 Rule 19(1) Rules of Court 2012 (RoC). In submitting that that there was no clear of reasonable cause of action disclosed in the Plaintiff’s SoC, the learned SFC referred to the Federal Court case of Tony Pua Kiam Wee v Government of Malaysia and Another Appeal [2019] 12 MLJ 1 to map out their arguments, specifically paras 38 to 41 of the judgment: “The essence of a striking out application particularly under limb (a) of O18 r 19 is that upon an examination of the claim, a whole and coherent cause of action must subsist. A whole and coherent cause of action cannot subsist until and unless all the essential ingredients comprising that cause of action subsist or are made out in the body of the statement of claim, That in turn means that it is incumbent upon a court undertaking a striking out exercise to scrutinise a claim purposively such that it is satisfied that prima facie, the statement of claim contains a sufficient factual matrix to support each and every ingredient of the cause of action pleaded. On the meaning of a reasonable cause of action, see Indah Desa Saujana Corp Sdn Bhd & Ors v James Foong Cheng Yuen, Judge, High Court Malaya & Anor [2008] 2 MLJ 11; [2008] 1 CLJ 651 where His Lordship Low Hop Bing JCA Stated at para 29: ‘A reasonable cause of action means simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person’. S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 It may well be the case that a claim is pleaded in such a manner that the factual matrix is scandalous or so frivolous or vexatious that it can give rise to no other inference that that it is wholly indefensible or unsustainable. This would be plainly discernible on the face of a claim. Such pleas or averments would fall for striking out under one of the other limbs of O18 r 19 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the court. ~ … Recourse ought not to be had to the oversimplified catchphrase of ‘let the matter go to trial’ in place of undertaking the task of identifying the elements and ascertaining whether the plea meets and supports, by way of a salient factual matrix, each of those elements. To do otherwise would be to misconstrue and misapply the classic and timeless test of only striking out a claim which is ‘obviously unsustainable’ as enunciated in the Bandar Builder’s case’.” (the emphasis the Defendants’.) No clear reasonable cause of action disclosed in the SoC [10] The Plaintiff’s SoC was scrutinised, no less than thrice. This Court found difficulty identifying the causes of action pleaded. Undoubtedly there were vagueness of allegations brought forth by the Plaintiff. Though serious in nature, the SoC lacked the specificity and clarity required for a judicial inquiry. The claims of negligence and mismanagement were broadly stated without pinpointing the exact legal violations or direct S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 causal links to the Defendants’ actions or omissions. (the Federal Court’s decision in RHB Bank Bhd (Substituting Kwong Yik Bank Bhd) v Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLJ 188; [2010] 1 CLJ 665 referred). [11] This Court agrees with the contention of the Defendants where the learned SFC painstakingly showed this Court that the form and contents of the SoC were not in accordance with Order 18 Rule 7(1) RoC. It was prolix, confusing in a way that the lengthy statements were needed to be sifted to understand which angle the Plaintiff took to launch this action. It contained a scatter of evidence yet there was no identification of the elements that make the cause of action. [12] There were also complaints of events which the Plaintiff was not involved in or had personal knowledge; some accusations in the SoC appeared to be accusations on behalf of others who are not even parties to the proceedings, which were repeated - see paras 66-68, 74, 75, 81 and 83 of the SoC. Several paragraphs were assumptions and some others bordered scandalous, to say the least – see paras 67, 68, 71, 72, 81, 83, 85, 86 of the SoC. [13] The 109 paragraphs (the sub-paragraphs not included) were convoluted. This Court finds that evidence and lengthy quotes were lifted from documents and Hansard – as demonstrated in paras 46-48, 51, 55, 61, 73, 79, 80, 82, 84, 105 and 106 of the SoC. Though lengthy, there were no disclosure on the particular cause of action or its elements. Neither was it pleaded the facts that were to support the elements of each cause of action. Specifically, paras 34, 50, 52, 53, 54 and 56 of the SoC but the overall SoC too. S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [14] Paras 85(a)-(h) of the SoC demonstrated the Plaintiff’s grievances and wide-ranging accusations and disconnected complaints which this Court not only finds difficult to understand the Plaintiff’s cause of action but also embarrassing. This Court will not allow its process to be abused – it is not a forum to air political manifestos. Order 18 Rule 7(1) RoC were not complied with. See also Davy v Garrett [1877) 7 Ch D 473, Dunn v Glass Systems (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 1901 (QB), Brown and Anor v AB [2018] EWHC 623 (QB), Barnes v Handf Acceptance [2004] EWHC 1095 (Ch), Doherty v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others [2009] IEHC 246, Tchenguiz and others v Grant Thornton UK LLP and others [2015] EWHC 405 (Comm), Ponnusamy and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] EWHC 1760 (QB), Trump v Clinton et al (US District Court No 22-CV- 14102). The subject matter in the Plaintiff’s SoC is non-justiciable [15] The subject matter of the Plaintiff's claim fundamentally involved the evaluation of decisions and actions taken by the Defendants in their executive capacity. These decisions are intrinsically tied to political considerations, resource allocation, and policy determinations – all of which are the affairs of the elected branches of the legislature and the executive which is the Fifth Defendant. The First to the Fourth Defendants were officers democratically elected who had performed the executive roles. Unless and until there are causes of actions that show there were indeed negligence or misfeasance of the public office, it is imperative that the courts/judiciary refrains from engaging in matters that fall squarely S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 within the domain of the executive and legislative branches. The decisions made regarding the HSR Project and related financial management were inherently political and policy-driven, which are not justiciable issues. Entertaining this suit would set a precedent for judicial overreach into policy decisions, which is contrary to the separation of powers’ principle. [16] The business of the Judiciary, specifically this Court is to administer justice. Rights and liabilities are to be determined in the cases filed according to the law. The Plaintiff’s claim which are absent of facts and elements of negligence and the tort of misfeasance of public office in the SoC, involved policy decisions that surpass the institutional competence of this Court. While there may be disagreements over the efficacy of the decisions made, these do not inherently constitute misfeasance. For the record, it is noted that the Plaintiff’s claim of misfeasance in public office requires a high threshold of proof, including evidence of targeted malice or recklessness. In any event, the subject matter is non-justiciable. [17] This Court agrees with the Defendants’ submissions that the nature, composition and process of the court and government are inherently suited to its own respective spheres, and inherently unsuited to perform the functions of the other. The distinction between the roles of the court and government is at the heart of the constitutional balance. Refer to John Laws, The Constitutional Balance (2021) Oxford: Hart Publishing at 38- 43, Peguam Negara Malaysia v Chin Chee Know (as secretary of Persatuan Kebajikan dan Amal Liam Hood Thong Chor Seng Thuan) and another appeal [2019] 3 MLJ 443, Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj v Peguam Negara Malaysia [2013] 2 MLJ 321, ; [2013] 3 AMR 315; S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [2013] 2 CLJ 1009, Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor and Other Appeals (No 1) [2020] 5 MLJ 277. [18] Engaging with the subject matter of the Plaintiff's claim would set a precedent for the judiciary to interfere in areas that are fundamentally policy-driven and politically charged. This would lead to judicial overreach, where courts take on roles that are not within their traditional purview, potentially undermining the balance of powers within the government. This Court considered existing precedents where similar claims have been deemed non-justiciable. Judicial restraint is necessary to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and to ensure that it does not overstep its constitutional role. The Plaintiff has no locus standi [19] The Plaintiff, while demonstrating a commendable level of civic engagement, has failed to establish a sufficient legal interest or direct personal injury resulting from the Defendants' actions. The concept of 'locus standi' is pivotal in our legal system to ensure that only those directly affected by a matter have the standing to bring a suit. In this case, the Plaintiff's capacity to represent the interests of all Malaysian citizens in a legal capacity is not substantiated by the relevant legal standards. The Supreme Court in Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang; United Engineering (M) Berhad v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 adopted the definition of locus standi as held in Boyce v Paddington Borough Council [1903] 1 Ch 109: S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 “A plaintiff can sue without joining the Attorney-General in two cases: first, where the interference with the public right is such that some private right of his is at the same time interfered with (eg. Where an obstruction is so placed in a highway is specially affected by reason that the obstruction interferes with his private right to access from and to his premises to and from the highway); and, secondly, where no private right is interfered with but the plaintiff, in respect of his public right, suffers special damage peculiar to himself from the interference with the public right.” [20] Nothing in the SoC show that the Plaintiff’s private or personal rights were interfered with by the Defendants, or in the event of an interference with a right that is common to all members of the public, if he suffers special damage peculiar to himself. Refer to Malaysian Trade Union Congress & Ors v Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi & Anor [2014] 2 CLJ 525; [2014] 3 MLJ 145 and Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Government of Malaysia & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 593; [2020] 1 LNS 70. [21] Moreover, it is observed that the Plaintiff who claimed to represent the Malaysian public had failed to disclose in his SoC that he was indeed authorised or appointed to represent each Malaysian taxpayer or citizen. See Duke of Bedford v Ellis [1901] AC 1. Palmco Holding Bhd v Sakapp Commodities (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1988] 2 MLJ 626, Voon Keng & Ors v Syarikat Muzwina Development Sdn Bhd [1990] 3 CLJ S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 (Rep) 329; [1990] 3 MLJ 61, Abdul Rahim Aki v Krubong Industrial Park (Melaka) Sdn Bhd [1995] 4 CLJ 551; [1995] 3 MLJ 417. Abuse of court process [22] In his gallant fashion, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants had wrongfully used moneys of the Malaysian public in the payments for compensation to Singapore for the termination of the HSR Project. Yet, it embarked on this suit that incur public cost whereby precious judicial time and resources had to be spent ploughing through the Plaintiff’s lengthy and convoluted SoC which did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. [23] The reasonable and logical conclusion was that the suit was not filed by the Plaintiff in good faith. The prayers sought for spelled out the motive of the Plaintiff’s action which was immediate monetary gains. The Plaintiff had pecuniary gain as the end goal and that would be from the Defendants’ coffers (the Fifth Defendant of which would be from the public funds as well!). This Court therefore prevents such venture to abuse the court process. The term confirmed in Boo Are Ngor (p) v Chua Mee Liang (p) (sued as public officer of Kim Leng Tze Temple) [2009] 6 MLJ 145; [2009] 6 CLJ 617, Indah Desa Saujana Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v James Fong Cheng Yuen & Anor [2008] 1 CLJ 651; [2008] 1 CLJ 651, Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin [1988] 1 SLR 374. S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 This Court’s Order [24] Allowing this suit to proceed without a clear and direct cause of action could open the floodgates to frivolous litigation, potentially inundating the judicial system with cases brought forth by individuals or groups without a direct or substantial interest in the matter. [25] For each and every reason assessed above, this Court strikes out the Plaintiff’s claim. There is no need for any more precious judicial time and resources to spend on the Plaintiff’s claim which disclosed no reasonable cause of action where the subject matter is non-justiciable. Central to this is the fact that the Plaintiff has no locus standi. This suit amounted to an abuse of court process. [26] This Court is of the considered view that costs must be ordered against the Plaintiff. The counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff had launched other suits and upon unfavourable decisions, costs were not ordered on the basis that they were public interest cases. In this instance however, this Court declines to deem this case categorised as public interest. Premised on resources allocated by the Defendants, a sum of RM10,000 is reasonable. [27] The binding authorities on striking out the Plaintiff’s suit summarily are Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 4 CLJ 7, Sim Kie Choon v Superintendent of Pudu Prison & Ors [1985] CLJ (Rep) 293; [1985] 2 MLJ 385, Middy Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors v Arensi Marley (M) Sdn Bhd [2013] 3 MLJ 511 and Gasing Heights Sdn Bhd v Aloyah bte Abd Rahman & Ors [1996] 3 MLJ 259; [1996] 3 CLJ 695. S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [28] The Plaintiff’s suit is struck out. The Defendants are awarded costs of RM10,000 to be paid forthwith. DATED 15 DECEMBER 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiff: Mohaji Selamat and Nur Izatul Nabila Nazarudin T/n Mohaji Hazury & Ismail For the Defendants: Donald Joseph Franklin, Razalijaya A. Dadi and Erma Wani Md Kassim Senior Federal Counsel Saravanan Kuppusamy, Syafiq Affandy Hassan and Nur Syazwani Abdul Aziz Federal Counsel S/N K5QXKqVjREmnT/4YOsKgEA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CA-11ANCvC-4-09/2022

PERAYU Adnan Bin Yaakob RESPONDEN Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia

Appellant in this suit has filed Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Summary Judgment decision pursuant to Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 that was delivered by the Magistrate in Magistrates Court Kuantan on 25.8.2022. This court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal with cost amounting to RM1,000.00. It is crystal clear that the case filed in the Magistrates Court is definitely a plain and obvious case where Summary Judgement is a suitable mean to dispose the matter. This Court is of the view that the Magistrate has diligently perused through the documents before deciding as such.

20/12/2023

YA Dato' Haji Zainal Azman Bin Ab. Aziz

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ec01cacb-ca29-48e6-82cf-4a7e949470c5&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR SIVIL APPEAL NO.CA-11ANCvC-4-09/2022 BETWEEN ADNAN BIN YAAKOB (NRIC NO: 500418-06-5217) ...APPELLANT AND SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA ...RESPONDENT [IN MAGISTRATE COURT AT KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR CIVIL SUIT NO: CA-A72NCVC-32-02/2022 BETWEEN SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA ...PLAINTIFF AND ADNAN BIN YAAKOB ...DEFENDANT] (NRIC NO: 500418-06-5217) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 20/12/2023 15:30:28 CA-11ANCvC-4-09/2022 Kand. 36 S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 INTRODUCTION 1. The Appellant in this suit has filed Notice of Appeal in KM1 to appeal against the Summary Judgment decision pursuant to Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 that was delivered by the Magistrate in Magistrates Court Kuantan on 25.8.2022. This Court has perused through the cause papers and has come into the decision to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal (KM1) with cost amounting to RM1,000.00. MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The Appellant in this suit is a member of the Board of Directors of Pasdec Holdings Berhad (“PASDEC”) and its largest shareholder, Perbadanan Kemajuan negeri Pahang (“PKPNP”). 3. The Respondent is a statutory body established under Section 3 of the Securities Commissions Act 1993 (“SCMA”) and is vested with the functions and powers given to it under SCMA and Capital Market and Services Act 2007 (“CMSA”).” 4. Pursuant to Section 354 (3) of the CMSA, where a person has contravened the provisions of the CMSA (other than the provisions S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 under Part V and division 2 of Part VI) or any securities law, the Respondent has the power to take the cations provided under Section 354(3)(a) to (f) of the CMSA which is inclusive of reprimanding and imposing penalty. 5. On 16.5.2018, PASDEC issued an Abridged Prospectus dated 16.5.2018 (“Abridged prospectus”). To simply the facts, the Respondent conducted a review on the above matter and found inter alia that the Applicant as a member of PASDEC’s Board of Directors, had authorized the issuance of Abridged Prospectus which contained information from which there is a material omission. 6. As of the date of issuance of the Abridged Prospectus on 16.5.2018, PKNP’s application to the Ministry of Finance (MOF) for approval to subscribe for the PKNP’s entitlement at the issue price of RM0.35 per Rights Share was still pending. This material information was not disclosed in the Abridged Prospectus. 7. As a member of the PASDEC’s Board of Directors, the Defendant has individually and collectively accepted full responsibility for the S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 accuracy of the information in the Abridged Prospectus pursuant to the PASDEC’s Directors Responsibility Statement dated 2.5.2018. 8. By a notice of show cause dated 15.11.2018, the Respondent notified the Applicant of their findings and allowed the Appellant to provide a written explanation within 14 business days why actions should not be taken against him under Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Section 246(1)(b) and Section 367(1) of CMSA. 9. The Appellant by a reply letter dated 4.12.2018, the Appellant admitted that there was a material omission in the abridged Prospectus and pleaded for leniency in respect of the punishment to be imposed on him. 10. The Respondent then sent a letter dated 22.7.2020 to the Appellant to notify him that he has breached Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Section 246(1)(b) and Section 367(1) of CMSA. The Respondent imposed sanctions for the Appellant to be reprimanded and a penalty in the sum of RM84,000.00 to be paid within 14 business days. S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 11. The Appellant sent another appeal letter dated 19.8.2020 for the sanctions to be withdrawn against him. The Respondent dismiss the appeal via a letter dated 18.2.2021 and maintained the sanctions. 12. The Respondent’s solicitors via a letter dated 22.12.2021 demanded for the payment of the RM84,000.00 from the Appellant. However, since no payment was made, the Respondent filed a civil suit in Magistrates Court Kuantan to claim the same. 13. On 31.5.2022 the Respondent filed in a Notice of Application for Summary Judgement against the Appellant. The magistrates court allowed the Respondent’s application for Summary Judgement pursuant to Order 14(1) Rules of Court 2012 with cost RM1,000.00. 14. Dissatisfied with the Summary Judgement decision made by the Magistrates Court, the Appellant filed in an appeal to the High Court via Notice of appeal (KM1) here. S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 MAIN ISSUES Has the preliminary requirements under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 been met? 15. The principal rule in summary judgement proceedings have been laid out in numerous case laws which one of it is the Court of Appeal case of UNP PLYWOOD SDN BHD v. HSBC BANK MALAYSIA BHD [2010] 5 CLJ 177 where it was decided that; “Summary judgment procedure is a procedural device available for prompt and expeditious disposition of an action by a plaintiff or a counterclaim by a defendant, without a trial when there is no dispute as to the fact and law.” 16. Thus, it is the duty of this court to examine whether is there any dispute as to facts and law which hinders the granting of a Summary Judgement. A Summary Judgement can only be granted in cases which are plain and obvious where it is unnecessary for a full trial and calling of witnesses. 17. This court is of the view that, via the pleadings filed by both parties there is no dispute in any facts and law that should be considered. S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 The main issue is whether the Appellant is liable to pay the RM84,000.00 that is being claimed by the Respondent due to the material omission in the Abridged Prospectus. 18. The above issue could be simply answered via the admission of the Appellant himself in paragraph 13 of the Amended Statement of Defence, whereby the Appellants agrees that there is a material omission in the Abridged Prospectus. It is a well-known law that parties are always bound by their pleadings. 19. The fact that the Appellant has admitted to their mistakes was further supported by the Appellant letter to the Respondent dated 4.12.2018 (page 101 of the Record of Appeal) and letter dated 19.8.2020 (page 109 of the Record of Appeal). 20. Both these letters simply show that the Appellant at all material times are aware of their mistake and has even appealed for the sanction to be reduced. 21. This Court does not find the need for a full trial and Summary Judgement is the best way to dispose this matter because the S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 admission of the Appellant is there. Besides that, the Appellant has failed to submit any triable issues for this Court to ponder upon. 22. This Court does not consider the averments in the Appellant’s Affidavit in Reply (page 73 of the Record of Appeal) stating that the appellant would like to withdraw the admission made via the above- mentioned letters because he was not guided by a legal representative. This court is of the view that this defence is an afterthought made by the Appellant to avoid being held liable for the mistakes made. 23. When the admission was made via the letters, the Appellant was aware of his mistake and knew the consequences of his mistake. To later on submit to this court that such admission was made without the guidance of a legal representative, is clearly an afterthought and could be considered as a bare denial. 24. Therefore, this court considers of the admission made by the Appellant and agrees with the decision made by the Magistrate in the Magistrates Court that there are no triable issues in this case. S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 25. This Court is guided by the Supreme Court Case of BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA v MOHD ISMAIL & ORS [1992] 1 MLJ 400 where it was decided that: “Where such assertion, denial or dispute is equivocal, or lacking in precision or is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent, or is inherently improbable in itself, then the judge has a duty to reject such assertion or denial, thereby rendering the issue not triable” 26. Thus, it could be concluded in this case there is no apparent triable issue that renders the need of a full trial. Was the Appellant denied from the right to be heard? 27. This Court is of the view that the Appellant was not denied the right to be heard when he was given a change to answer to the Notice of Show Cause Issued by the Respondent. 28. When the Appellant received the Notice of Show Cause from the Respondent, he was given a chance to set out his stand and any S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 form of Defence before the sanction was ordered by the Respondent. 29. The Appellant in turn did not show any form of plausible defense and rather has admitted to the mistakes made by him. Thus, the Appellant could not later on come to this court and say he was not given the chance to be heard, when he has exhausted his right when he replied to the Notice of Show Cause issued by the Respondent. 30. Thus, this court believes that it is definitely not an issue to be tried. Is the Appellant liable for the material omission in the Abridged Prospectus? 31. After reading through all the cause papers and documents tendered to this court, it is undisputed that the Appellant is liable for the material omission in the Abridged Prospectus. 32. This Court is guided by the contemporaneous documents which clearly shows that the Appellant was liable for the material omissions. At the time when the Abridged Prospectus was issued, S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 the Appellant was a director of PASDEC and PKNP. Therefore, pursuant to Section 354(1)(a) of the CMSA read together with Section 246(1)(b) and Section 367(1) of CMSA he is liable. 33. From the minutes of PASDEC’s Special Board of Director’s Meeting dated 25.1.2018, the Appellant has individually and collectively accepted full responsibility for the accuracy of the information in the Abridged Prospectus. Furthermore, the PASDEC’s Director’s Responsibility Statement dated 2.5.2018 acknowledges the Appellant’s responsibility for the accuracy of the Abridged Prospectus. 34. Though the Appellant at all material time is averring that he should not be held responsible, all the contemporaneous documents are proving otherwise. CONCLUSION 35. Thus, it is crystal clear that the case filed in the Magistrates Court is definitely a plain and obvious case where Summary Judgement is a suitable mean to dispose the matter. This Court is of the view S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 that the Magistrate has diligently perused through the documents before deciding as such. 36. Therefore, this Court upholds the decision in the Magistrates Court and the Appeal (KM1) is disposed with cost of RM1,000.00. -signed- ZAINAL AZMAN BIN AB AZIZ JUDGE HIGH COURT MALAYA OF KUANTAN PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR DATED : 30 NOVEMBER 2023 S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Appelant : Tan Sri Adnan bin Yaakob – appear and represent himself. YP Plantation Holdings Sdn Bhd Tingkat 4, Kompleks Yayasan Pahang Tanjung Lumpur, 26060 Kuantan, Pahang Respondent Solicitor: Mrs Ding Ee Lynn Tetuan Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill Level 6, Menara 1 Dutamas, Solaris Dutamas No. 1 Jalan Dutamas, 50480 Kuala Lumpur Ref : DEL/COS/63530 Email : enquiry@lh-ag.com S/N y8oB7CnK5kiCz0plJRwxQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

TA-A51KJ-1-08/2021

PLAINTIF 1. ) TAN SUAN TONG 2. ) FOO MOY KHIAW DEFENDAN 1. ) ADAM SUKRI BIN MOHAMMAD 2. ) Pejabat Kesihatan Daerah 3. ) Jabatan Kesihatan Negeri (JKN) 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

1. Plaintif-plaintif gagal membuktikan tuntutannya di atas imbangan kebarangkalian terhadap pihak Defendan-defendan.2. Oleh itu, pihak Plaintif-plaintif bertanggungan 100% ke atas kemalangan yang berlaku. 3. Kegagalan untuk memanggil Plaintif Pertama dan pegawai penyiasat asal kemalangan dalam tindakan ini membolehkan Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 dimasukkan terhadap pihak Plaintif-plaintif. 4. Tiada versi kemalangan daripada pihak Plaintif dikemukakan di Mahkamah apabila Plaintif Pertama dan pegawai penyiasat asal tidak dipanggil bagi memberi keterangan. 5. Atas kuantum, bagi Ganti rugi Am, dibenarkan jumlah secara global. Untuk Ganti rugi Khas, hanya dibenarkan tuntutan yang dapat dikemukakan bukti dokumentar seperti resit dan lain-lain oleh pihak Plaintif 2.

20/12/2023

Puan Norashima Bt Khalid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5d275d3c-83a2-4e16-831b-720c174d3eaf&Inline=true

AP TA-A51KJ-1-08-2021 FULL 20/12/2023 11:41:53 TA-A51KJ-1-08/2021 Kand. 43 S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PF0nXaKDFk6DG3IMF00rw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal n—Asu<J—1—oa/2u21 Kand. 43 22,1‘/2:24 ,,-4; :2 pg AM MAHKAMAH sssvgg 9 Kg; 5 masuesnuu an an rzasuaemu umu muvsm ANYARA 1. H» sum ram: 2 F00 uov xmw ...PLAlNl'IF-PLAINTIF mu I. Anm sum am morwman 2. pzusn KESIHAYAN menu MARANG :. uanm KESIHAYAN NEGERI mzsussmu A. KERAJAAN muvsuu .. uzrsunawnsssunm N Prnnxzxurksnsawmrumw mm Sum IHIWDIY WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum puns! Ausgu Egusumuuu m m. mun Ilyuan yang dukomukukun our. man PVIIHM-plllnm um... udnk btlpuu n dzngln keoulusan Mlhkamnh until 25 omm 2:22: clan man memhnat uymn he mas kesaumhan keptnusan tersebul .2} Kepumsun Mahkamah aflalzh sepem yang henkul Ll-hll Pmak P\aInIn-p\|mm new. gagal umuk memhulmkm «unnuannya dx an-s imbaruan keoamngkalmn (ahadap max Dafendivv-defendan dun elm nu pmak PlaInlW- mm bcnanqgunaln 100% Re ztzs kemnllflhn yang mum dullm kn m. Knunlum: Gnnli mg: Am Unluk kesemul ktoedcnaan yang mawam uhh Pm-mt m nbng mm upuun pamblun‘ M-nu nu membenalhn mmuun Jean g\ub.I\ yung bemumlh sahanyik mzunnoa no sw pm..x;»<umus:mun.w 2 «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm Inferensl yang nenemangsn (meme mvamncep an bawah 5eKSYen1l4{g)Akla msmngm wse unm Pumm urnuk mink manunwfl vlfinvm pnnyunl snoring uh lug pqnlmq - mp: ms: dlnpadi pmlk Plamm damn mduknn m.‘ lelcrlngln cum-n Fevuml mm». mm. bctkabnvnngkullln darn rrmorsnlly pmbablc Itnling haqimana Inemalangnn berlaku nemnm Panama dalam kmuarugannya menvyalakan bahaua umm sampaw flu Inmpll komnlanvln mm m slmpang Au Jamm‘ waman Pannmu um blmanll am -p-nu. mu ynkm um ma-mm mn ylng dining a n «mun mun, kemudlm buvulah Delendan Panama kemu um umplng Izensebul Selnrumrwi menuvm Ddmdan mama, secavlnba-M7: mamm Forum: yang menunwlng maltwknlnyn unngnn kdujuin yang lmggw man moiangglr 5154 mm mm wma-n Pmama pan. mu Mu sm Prnnxzxuflxnnszlmrnnuw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Kenmngan sm Im (em msakmvg men gambar kerusakan mm lain eksnbn PS Mm yang gala: manumukkan bihwa knvukln ylnu «mum olnn mm sot mm. mun uunmu m hahauvan klnln belnkmg mm mxemn Seknlnyl bum aakwaan PlauIlW-n\aImn mam kemalanqan bellaku mm: sm kelmr snmpsng. maka kemszkan yang makamw pashlah berlaku m nanagun belakang mu hadapan keveta sm rm p-unpm ml. «am an lallh menquk m ylng u.n.,.u em: pzgmm uenenaanoecaman m damn humhlnnyl unu rmnm am Maud Anna 1. Anor v Chan Tmn nu (ma) muu 129 yang memuluskan sepem benkul ' wnsn mnirunted wan Mn conmwng vemons my my white Ina! cowl was to cervical mm vomon was fnmmmly pumm- or Improo-ale Bardasalkan us In: Mankamah jug: menu menu! seem kaulunmln Iratemrvnnn mg mmnum-. our. pmuk mumm- prawwann Deiendlndahndnn am mg n ,.m bnrmn vum lremalangnn yang dlktmuktkan ullh pmak PlaIrml—plam|W me\alm Fenymaan Yunlmarmya mun ndak msaxnng oleh sw Prnuxzxuwnuszlmrnnuw ‘2 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm sw Prnuxzxuwnuszlmrnnuw «ms smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! manmm kmevangan mm; mereka gaqa! unmk mngsmmakan Phmlnl Panama dun pegmtm permzsan asa\ dahm nndakm W cm nu, Mahkamah bevpeudapal bihaw: kulaungin Ddmdnn Pnnamn mun mhcrenl/y pmc-or. mum bugmmvm nmmngnn mum E-rkunnn dengan «am we yang mzrupukan kepuluwn .....m m. mmmn rmnquk nan. x ms dmuuk om poguam Defcndan-deiendm mu kg: um: ms... nln Ahaul Ha]: Axlx v Norman M: Clk moan 5 ML! 159 ymg menyatnkzn npem bnnkm ‘A: to m. mm: summons to man ma Ivfioliant Mdlvreurl had am compmmasa /am m aaraemsnl wun me wanna: mum; ma: A Is szm mcumbsnl upon rm com to make a wnsnievad daemon mm on me (stably Mme evmamx adduced were u ' Dawn kes m hldapun Mahkamah pads nan m walaupun Mahkamah Ielah menenma we Iabagar eksnhn manna kepada m huiahan puhak mu Mahkamah nerpsnaapax hahawa warlya ndak dapm membanlu kes plhak PVIIHM-Dlamlwmemandangkzn Flmnhtplalrvlfl gags‘ mm rmngumukakan vevimya hmmq tngmmn n kemahngln man on umpmg m. pvmmalmnm ma gsgl umuk menqemukakan penmn Penyuasm asal yang mermzsfl xeuman xmaungan In bag! rnemben penjehsan um-g mum Pstersehul Ia] Be-uanrxan nlnsznalasan dv am Nlhkamah maudavalx hahwna an an Imbannm kehirmgkaluan pahak Phvmflldlh mm umnk msmbukhkun lunlmnnnyl ltmldlp Dclalldan-d-lundm om nu‘ dlrlpidl ug. mun. Mihkamlh memululun hnhnvu vu--uw Panama adalan uanmggungm mm/. dzhm kumahngxn lersebul. 57 Kuanlum eanu mg am Mankamah bIvu1u]n dengan numun pegunm Determin- ueiendan hahawa kzcedztun yang dlalanu can dlpndlun men Plamm uaum Penyaca Tunlmannyi adilah salu bemuk keoederian yang um Merujuk kepada Vapornll Derubatzn sw pm..x;»<umus:mun.w “ «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm Dakar Flamm Panama dw muka rum13—19Ikman Dokumen a. wamm Panama man flrsamcan mengaxam mum-no smrs haadmmn nwy (rssr; wun «mam wncunum skull Inclun and mums Memorm-gas D\ah nu‘ Muhkamah mtndnmm bahawa hecedevaan yang malarm men Plamhl Panama Im idflah mu bemuk kocederun ynng sama flan nnerangxunn kesemui kecederaan lam yang dvalalm din dipbdkan oleh Flamhf [9] Mahkamah menuuk kes mam Nnr Aluvul bin Ylhya (suing By nay. Mn Eni, hm mam, nm Mona ana Lnmuun Ruamanmm) v Rleknon Annk Amp 1. Am-atml(2o17l 1 PIR (27), d\ mzna aalam fires um. Mahlxamnh man memhmaman Dampasan kepada keoedsvaan «tam: yang dnalmm men manna seman mengnmhn klva laktuflzktaov Ian yam dIa\arm oleh Plunmfl can nu Manunnan bmpondnpm hahnwa law nman gum: mm amenkan umuk segala kccedevaan yang manann den ma-nm pemna yang benumlall RM200.DOU oo daum nndakan nn N PFnnx2KDFkaDs:\Mrnn:w Nuns s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. mn.ny mums m.n.n wa mum puns! Gami mm Khai [Io] Damn memhanarkan gum mg: khu yang dnunun cm aumn. pnamm damn mdakan mu pemnuuuan yang kukuh flan 1:435 nan-nan dlkemukakan uleh Pnammaramm dan lmkan nama sekadar membenkan xemaman secam nun sahapa lnl Mahkamah memmk ks: Nur Farnna Aida Fainl I Otmn v Keujun Ilalnysll may 1 cu 152 yang menya(ak.1n seam mu bmwa um mi km: p-nu dulvdkzn an. dnbnktikun am bukln Iakndsv mulclmk-n bum-n dun auaumn klpldu Mahkamah unluk mp-nuuun [:2] Dnlnm lmdnin W, Mnhkzmnh hlnyl membenllkln Hem n, E an x mmwa nsm-nem lam mm. A. a‘ c r‘ 5. H dan J mg dnumm men Dmzk Pbawnnlwzlrmf zaabh dwolak Hal ml adllah henna mm mm D 5 dan I sahau yang heqiya fihuknkan men pnhak P\amm dungan mennamukakavv vuv| yang bujumlah amuse an N Prnnxzxumznszwmrnnuw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 1'-ummn Ba . Dekndnn [13] sm...m.n mm mm ylng a. muklkln ollh um numm. defendant yang mermvuukkan bayavan bag: kos pemhaldan new sm yang benumlah nmzso on sena rnsngalnhll bum ueznngan sm Iemiflg baslalmana kemalangan Lersehm mm. dengan sukangan eksvbl P6 «Max makn Mnkamnh man mcmbunarkan Kumman I:-las pink Dehndnn mm ,um\.n mumn Fudlh dun km [14] Mshknmah mambenavkan laedah flan kas sehagnmuna Penyila Tumulan flan skala Knimpulun [15] Mlhkamah Ielnh nlmmuskzn mm mm an. 0 pm. . mu.» bananflvungan mu-z. ke .x.. kemlhngln mg mum dalam Imrlnkan WU om m., u.nu.m.n manulik kaulunmln Iunlutan mm Plamm-plawnm new... has sehany-k Rmmoaoao kepada pmB< Dedendandelendan gm memhenankan mnnmn balms pmak Daiundln-dnfvndau yang nanumlah Rmzsa on N Prnnxzxumznszwmrnnuw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Yankh e N-7vemher2023 morasm » my NakmIM=hkam Seryensrvii. Kuala Yerenmam N Prnnxzxumznszwmrnnuw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Olen nu, ‘man garm mg: am ylng dlbenarkan anauan seharwak RM200.I7D0 an Garm rugv Khas Hem n E an x mm dlbtluriun uebagalmanu Msn ylng dlkemukekan Manama nemahem ||m1A‘ 5 c‘ F, 5 N J) aflahh mlnlak Mun‘ mum (unmun yang flhenzrxan nagx gum rug: mu mun sehanyak mz am an Fndah serpnmmann puIyl1I|unMIrI adalah am «an Km meng\ku| skala (31 Memundangkan Mahkaman memumxan bmawa villk waumn Panama adalah herlanggungan new kn alas kemmangan yang henaku nuns Mahkamah munmax lunman plhlk Plamlfl-p\aImIl dungan kw: sebnnyak RM700000 kuvada pmak De1IndIn— dukndln Mnhlamah mg: mnmh-mrknn mnluun hi 3 plhlk nevunaumeueman ynng beuumhh nmzso no sw PFnux2KDFknDs:IIMrnn:w 5 «mu sum n-nhnrwm be used m mm u. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm [AI [51 ninnlusan Fnkh Ku ma 25 Duo: we plan an VI n kurung 10 an 9.9., Pllmlll mam. sedan; menunggang mmosnkllnyl nnmhul panaavwan peu 1254 secava bevsandlnan u. smpang up Jalan An Jemm. Manakala uavaman Penama pull: sedang memandu momkzv nms MPV Nissan x~nau number pendaflavan TEE as Menuml penyaiaan Iunnulln pmak Flilmlralamnl‘ kemnlangan henaku apnma De¢end|n Panama gagal herhenu an muka wnpang ternpil kepdlan flan menghahng laluan mamm Penanu yang kehka vlu siding bevwerik nuns m lempu kspman Manaxaxa warm when Drfeman venama menymzkln bahawa di «ampaumnaxaman belw-nlIlhbtvhIn|\ avabila sampmdn svmpang Jnlan Av Jnrmh nbnmm mambeluk be u xemlh mnmuuk-n luau: knnderaan ynng mung am an man Secara uh:-mu vnanm Penamu \a|:h dataug flan aaan sebelnh karun dengan keliluan yang nnggl Lalu menggesal an Deiakang kznan rmmkar Demaan Panama syn PFnnxzKDFknDs:nMrnnaw "Nuns snnnw ...n.mn be used m mm a. mm-y mm: flan-mm VII .num vwm [61 m sw Prnuxzxuwnuszlmrnnuw «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Akmal kemalangan um. Hzlmn Panama (ehh meltgmamw keaderian senemmana yang mpman dalam Penyzlun Yun|u(anrvyl‘ manakzla Dafandin Panama hank Inawahml war as: kacedavaln Sehnymnyl s=:.mm-p<umnm.» mununlul plmplun gum: mgum dun glnll mm my mum kamalangan Im aanpm mm Detenaam aeienaan Pmak omnmmmenaan pig! mun membuat \unM3n . lelhtdap um: P\:iIIM~y\am\Wbeg1 kc: pembaxklan kere|a Deiundanveflervdan yam: msak mm kemahngm mum sabaillmaru undnkan .1. mm" Mnhkrnih m. sm u m....m Semmnmga (31 nuns -nu‘ sm — Sanin Hasmm mu Mn (Peqaw-w Penymsul Gnnhnn) 5:2 — Foo May Khan (P2 dun Vbu um. Plmnm Femmnj sm — Kaveval Mom Amuux Hafiz hm Che Mus: (lurugamhar mm sum pmux nu-ndan sow — Mum Sukn hm Mehnmmnd (nulmdln Panama dun pamindu kendeuavlv Dlplun mm-u-n Amamm suetan menehh ketenanann nkmm. m...mwI.irmc Mahkamnh mumiluln pmu P1l1mfl-pllmm man g. .: unluk mamnuunm mmm-um Iem flap pvhlk Delemandelendln Mann-|\|un Mahkl Ihhngw klpuluunlx mu. pan: bonkul‘ 1 Memandangkan mm: mm Max dipanggll unluk memben meangan mm. mm. Mahkzmah berpendzpalhahmm vars: kumillngan yang m.u.u.. mm mm Plmnm-plnnmw mm 4.... amm... Tanpl kalamngnn p:.mm=.m. punk Flam! M... gm; max am menyangul lelemngnn yang mbevuknn ax... Defends" Panama mum Mahkaman Jug: Mada kelaangan Vam umzuk dwpemrnbangkan mm kelerannan as-pm pm Defendan Penzma dun ma kelerangnn senyap sw PFnux2KDFknDs:IIMrnn:w ‘ «mm, smm n-nhnrwm .. used w my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum W mm gambargsmbcroan Rap?! Kasavyanq dlkemukakzn oleh negmu penywaszl ma: tehlvlng mm axmm «en mm puma .1. kugngahn meveka unmu munanggfl Plums! Panama ham memhen kelernngln xsmq palmcavaan lmdakan um nenangnmg Alasan yang amemn mun: wmm Panama man wearing hlsu mam» alnan mg xmm umuk max rmmnnwnl an new Funlml ml mu Ira nu m term: kmamu pumbahnsn Isyl n bag! Iaulsnn mu man auemam .1. Mahkamah bagw mernbamu Phanmn Panama unuk member: ketevimlln m Mahkamah In Psquam PIanlW—p\aInnl mga malt menyakakan leadaln Flanm Pemma sepamang |=myuh pevnmaan samm mmm Panama Bnleh memben uemangan mu suwiknya Walau hagamanlmn. vumm Purum: dun-« hadlrka Mahkamah pldl nun nu p.«mw..n ken ml Isafllnawrlfl Pmak p1:m(ll—p|amM man memnggn pegawa. pa-mam mm sm sehagal saw mam lmaakyw inn wax-u blgavmanapun. ham psmy-man bah: peguam weman ke mas saksl Im ,-an sw pm..x;»<umus:mun.w «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm menuruukkan canawa sexy Im nanyaran mevxggirmkan pegawm Denyflxal anal my man pun beam was «banana fllasan yang mbwm «mung munnlpi v-warm man u an! um a-pm luau kn Mmknmnh big! mmmm knnnngm wallupurl bsllsu blah balsam pad-I mus pe-meamn sedmg beflangsung Mahkzmah bevpendapm bahawa kerenwm uanvan: mam: new-muam mm kes ml mun penumz memandavlwkan belnu Inlah ke Iempu kumlhngnn an M .. my. many mmnax kandlan pm mm. kemahngan berlaku Seam: Inglknya. bahau am memvuman mun pa-vgeunuan bmxatan aengan kduingan senyav iepem man kasav sena narnbav-gambav yang mambn m lampfl kemahlvgiu Kntemngan y.Ing diaenkan ullh spa pm. hanyn buvdlurkzn vukwd my. 3:1: mm «mom numn mm mmrme momma mm mm pug: panyllul aux 5:2 mm mu mumban pevqatnnn Inmang aamuenammen sepem mgah kasar flan garvtzvqamhav yam: mkemukakan dnlam umiakan ml wmupm mlh mu mm mlumu um mm unuu nemumn densan bnmzhnn pea-mu Dehndn dehnflln‘ Mahkzmah man membeuamzn pmamamak unluk bemwah sw pm..x;»<umus:mun.w ° «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm sw pm..x;»<umus:mun.w «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG mm mm ke alas wsu m sew. mengamlm lam n...mn peguam Deienflarwieiendan x. :13: rsu .m Mankamm berpendwnl hahwa wahuvun man mm yam: dllemukakan ma dnenmn sabngal mm nzmun W. n n. 5P2 um um. mnmbnn p¢..,.....n taming dokumsn |avnbu| wuagimana pegiwaw Denyasal asal. maka Mzhkzmah herpendapal bahavwa eksbw Iersehm man dapat memhamu am. kes pmak Flimnf-plum! Sehm v|u. kmarangan daruad: pugsvai Wm... in! x.. ...a luv: ma.» vlmma man. mm n..n.y Parumn wndm «max dapll memnen kelerangnn cm-m mm. m m. ammm... .mm~u. .-. mt. Mnunanuh berpandlpallsaruwa 1-an: nbavang kalevanuhn yang mhenkan danpafl: mu Plawnnwhlmnlemang hagavnana kgmzlanqan menu: benaku Oleh yang dtmvkun Mahkamah bavvendapal mm plhak Flilnlwf-vllwvlfl um.» um Imluk membukflkln Dummzrwlya tuhndlv W1-k Dfllndnn-dlfendln blhlmanl mu dneuvkan oleh undang-undnng Mahkamnh xem merupnk keg Wong min V1: mnlwan Mohamud Ali mm: MLJ 115 ‘firm imam hm manyatakan mum benkuh “/7! a negrugem acbon me onus ofpmallul wholly on Me Pfamtlfl whether or not an. Darsndanl gm 9-m1anr:9Tne Platntfifs cannot snowed mmout pmal ov me Deinndlrvri M9/wanes “ Mnhknmnn mg: tzenelmu dengan hunhan paguam Dalendln» dalandan hahawa kegagman P|alnm—p\nmIAI wink mengemukakan Plimnl Pmama den peglwal panyiasll ual dalamlmdakan mnanvfl aaszn yam: munasabah membnlehhan anggapan benemangan (adverse mmnca) m-nun-I S-my-n m (g; Aku xmmmn 1950 dlmnukkin Itvhudlp pmlk Pmnln-ph m anlum umuun um um smug». mlnynhnbkln P\:<n1fl-Dlmnm ye-ya! unluk mumman Iunlularmya aw anas mblnaan keoavanakauan umadav Dmak Deter-aandefendzn uuamumaw pm mnvuluk mm m Illohd vmm bln Bnhuam um. K 4.... Ilalnynln Dun am 1...: (mm I mu an yangamava lam menunuskan. -u. ztzs kegagzmn memanggn pegawan panymsal. Mahkamah .m balvundavnl dan Ianrnlum mg... n-m..nu..u mum knnnn pelsekuman yum bhikunl ham Deinndnn-dgdenann um. dalnm kcaaaan xusmm mm murusabah memhnngkmxan sm Prnuxzxuwnuszlmrnnuw ‘° «W. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24NCC-157-03/2023

PEMOHON LOOI TIM TECK RESPONDEN 1. ) LEW CHEE CHIN 2. ) LEW WAI LIAM 3. ) LIM ENG HOI 4. ) LTL INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

COMPANY LAW: Oppression - Legitimate expectation of management participation - Directorship history – Long directorship - Shareholder status - Quasi-partnership arrangements - Family-owned companies - Sudden exclusion from management - Bank signatory role - Abrupt dismissal - Implied agreement - Inferred arrangement - Capital contribution - Shareholder salary payment agreement - Termination of employment - Ghost employees - Mutual agreements - Shareholder understanding - Company payments - Share buy out remedy - Exit option - Equitable relief - Relationship breakdown - Fair and reasonable offer - Ignored buy out requests - Trapped shareholder position - Breakdown of trust and confidence - Cumulative actions - Disregard of interests - Control and management - Power imbalance - Lack of information - Removal from management - Lack of financial information - Resolutions without consultation

20/12/2023

YA Tuan Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f85b3ea9-8492-4c61-ac7e-609493b2c098&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN (BAHAGIAN DAGANG) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24NCC-157-03/2023 Dalam perkara mengenai LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 199001012996 (204566-D)) Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Seksyen 346 Akta Syarikat 2016 Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Aturan 7 dan 28 Kaedah- kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA LOOI TIM TECK (No. K/P: 680503-05-5065) ... PLAINTIF DAN 1. LEW CHEE CHIN (No. K/P: 800619-14-5015) 2. LEW WAI LIAM (No. K/P: 821213-14-6096) 3. LIM ENG HOI (No. K/P: 830326-14-5684) 4. LTL INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 199001012996 (204566-D)) …DEFENDAN- DEFENDAN 20/12/2023 09:59:03 WA-24NCC-157-03/2023 Kand. 34 S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT [1] This shareholder dispute revolves around allegations of oppression leveled by the minority shareholder plaintiff against the majority shareholders of the family-owned LTL Industries Sdn Bhd regarding his exclusion from management and the company’s affairs. The plaintiff minority shareholder’s laundry list of grievances includes his removal as director, termination of his wife’s ghost employment, his own dismissal as an employee and failure to offer an exit option to divest his equity interest. The defendant majority shareholders steadfastly contest this action’s merits and legitimacy of these grievances. The court’s task is to dispassionately measure the competing facts and positions aganist established benchmarks of commercial fairness between business partners to assess if legal intervention is warranted on grounds of shareholder oppression. To determine this, detailed scrutiny now follows whether elements constituting minority shareholder oppression under the statutory regime are established based on the evidence tendered. Background facts [2] LTL Industries Sdn Bhd, the 5th Defendant (“the Company”) was incorporated on 21.9.1990 as a private company manufacturing vinyl wire products like twist ties and mask S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 ties. It has been a family-owned business with shareholders and directors coming from within the same family. [3] The Plaintiff, Looi Tim Teck, initially acquired 30.62% of the Company shares on 31.10.2003, and later acquired additional shares to own 49% shares since 26.8.2011. He was a director of the Company from 31.10.2003 until his removal on 10.10.2022. [4] The First Defendant, Lew Chee Chin (“LCC”) became majority shareholder of the Company with 51% shares on 7.1.2022 after acquiring his father's shares. On 30.6.2022, he transferred one share each to the Second Defendant, Lew Wai Liam (his brother) (“LWL”) and Third Defendant Lim Eng Hoi (his wife) (“LEH”) to hold 50.9997%, 0.0001471% and 0.0001471% shares respectively in the Company. [5] The Plaintiff and LCC/LWL are cousins. the Plaintiff was also a bank account signatory for the Company's Maybank account from 31.10.2003 until his removal in April 2022. On 6.4.2022, LCC and newly appointed LEH signed a resolution to change the bank account signatory. Unhappy over this change, the Plaintiff froze the bank account on 12.4.2022. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [6] The Company obtained injunctions in Originating Summons No. WA-24NCC-621-04/2022 (“OS 621”) in April 2022 to unfreeze the bank account and compel the Plaintiff to sign cheques for the Plaintiff. the Plaintiff also filed Originating Originating Summons No. WA-24NCC-629-04/2022 (“OS 629”) in April 2022 unsuccessfully to challenge the appointment of LEH as director and the change of bank signatory. With the Company succeeding in its legal suits, the parties decided to move on and discontinued legal proceedings in August 2022. [7] Subsequently, on 10.10.2022, the Plaintiff was removed as the Company’s director by a 3:1 shareholder vote. On 3.1.2023, his wife was terminated as an employee of the Company. On 20.2.2023, the Plaintiff was also terminated as the Company’s Sales Executive for failure to meet key performance indicators (KPI). Both the Plaintiff and his wife have referred their termination matters to the Industrial Relations Department. [8] The Plaintiff then filed the present oppression action in March 2023 alleging the affairs of the Company were conducted in an oppressive manner against him through various actions like removing him from management and as bank account signatory, failing to offer to purchase his shares, breaching agreements, and breaking down mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 The application [9] In this Originating Summons filed pursuant to Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA”), the Plaintiff prays an order that states (translated in full from the National Language to the English language): “1. “That the First Defendant, either on his own or jointly with the Second and/or Third Defendants: a) Has conducted the affairs of the Fourth Defendant and/or exercised the powers of its directors in a manner oppressive to the Plaintiff and/or disregarding the interests of the Plaintiff as a member of the Fourth Defendant; b) Has achieved and/or caused to be done, or threatened to achieve or cause to be done to the Fourth Defendant, a situation that has and/or will unfairly discriminate against or otherwise harm the Plaintiff as a member of the Fourth Defendant; 2. Following prayer 1 above or in any manner whatsoever, any orders that may be given and/or obtained from this court for the purpose of remedying the matters complained of herein, including but not limited to: a) The First Defendant and/or the Second and/or Third Defendants to buy all the Plaintiff’s shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. at a fair value to be assessed by an Independent Auditor, whose appointment is as stated in paragraph (b) or (c); b) An Independent Auditor shall be agreed upon and appointed by the Plaintiff and the First Defendant and/or the Second and/or Third Defendants within 2 weeks from the date this court issues an Order for this Summons for the purpose of assessing and determining the price for the Plaintiff’s shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd.; c) If the Plaintiff and the First Defendant and/or the Second and/or Third Defendants cannot agree S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 on the appointment of an Independent Auditor, then the parties are free to apply to this court for the purpose of submitting the name of an Independent Auditor to this court to enable the court to appoint an Independent Auditor for the purpose of assessing and determining the price for the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd.; d) Any Independent Auditor appointed following paragraph (b) or (c) above must be allowed by the Defendants to enter the office and buildings of the Defendants to enable the Independent Auditor to take possession of all minute books, any accounting documents, any books, or any documents of LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. and/or to take possession of any other books, any documents, or any correspondence and make copies thereof in connection with LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. for the purpose of assessing and determining the price for the Plaintiff’s shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd.; e) The Independent Auditor appointed following paragraph (b) or (c) above must complete the share valuation activity of the Plaintiff in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. within 2 months from the date the Independent Auditor takes possession of all minute books, any accounting documents, any books or any documents of LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. and/or to take possession of any other books, any documents, or any correspondence and make copies thereof in connection with LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd.; f) Once the Independent Auditor appointed following paragraph (b) or (c) above has completed the valuation activity and has determined the price of the Plaintiff’s shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd., the First Defendant and/or the Second and/or the Third Defendants must purchase all the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. within 1 month from the date the Independent Auditor determines the price of the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd.; g) The cost of the Independent Auditor and the cost of the share valuation activity of the Plaintiff in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. shall be borne by the First to the Third Defendants; S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 h) For the purposes of paragraphs (b) to (f) herein, the Independent Auditor appointed following paragraph (b) or (c) above shall determine the price of the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. as of 10.10.2022; 3. The cost of this application and all consequential and incidental costs shall be paid by the First to the Third Defendants; 4. The parties are free to make applications; and 5. Such other or further relief as this Honourable court deems fit and just.” Submissions of the Plaintiff and Defendants [10] In summary, the Plaintiff submits as follows: a) The Plaintiff had a legitimate expectation to participate in the management of the Company as long as he remained a shareholder, based on his longstanding appointment as a director for 19 years since becoming a shareholder, and the family-owned quasi-partnership nature of the Company. His removal from management amounts to oppression and unfair discrimination against him. b) Further, the failure to offer to purchase the Plaintiff's shares after removing him from management constitutes an act of oppression. There were also mutual agreements and understandings between the shareholders for payment of salaries to his family members without the need for those family members to work in the Company. The Company's stopping of S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 payments to the Plaintiff's wife and later the Plaintiff himself is in blatant disregard of the Plaintiff's interests as a shareholder, and breaches the aforementioned mutual agreements. c) Moreover, the Plaintiff has been completely excluded from participating in the management and affairs of the Company leading to a total lack of checks and balances. This demonstrates the clear breakdown of mutual trust and confidence amongst the shareholders. d) It would be manifestly unfair for the Plaintiff as a minority shareholder who has lost his management rights and employment with the Company to remain locked in as a shareholder. Therefore, the majority shareholders should be ordered by the court to purchase the Plaintiff's shares in the Company. e) In conclusion of the Plaintiff's case, the various acts and omissions by the Defendants violate mutual understandings between the shareholders, disregards the Plaintiff's interests, and run contrary to how the affairs of a family quasi-partnership company ought to be conducted by the standards of fair dealing. Having completely lost trust and confidence in the Defendants, the Plaintiff prays for appropriate relief orders from this court. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [11] In summary, the Defendants submit as follows: a) The Plaintiff's action is devoid of merit and unsustainable under Section 346 of the CA. It has been filed to unjustly enrich the Plaintiff by forcing the Defendants to purchase his shares. b) The removal of the Plaintiff as bank account signatory was done properly per the Company's Articles of Association and the CA. The issue had already been settled in previous legal suits in April 2022 between the same parties. Hence the current action is also barred by res judicata. c) Additionally, decisions regarding change of bank account signatories fall under managerial decisions that directors are entitled to make in the best interests of the Company. The one year delay in filing this action after the signatory issue first arose also warrants dismissing the action. d) The removal of the Plaintiff as director was carried out legally as per the CA and the Company's Articles, through a proper vote by the majority shareholders. Case law has held that removal of even a family member director does not amount to oppression under Section 346. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 e) The Plaintiff's wife has been admitted to be a ghost employee; hence her termination cannot constitute oppression. The court will not assist claims based on illegal acts either. f) An employee's termination also does not fall within the scope of Section 346. It has been held that termination of employment involves only domestic managerial decisions that companies are entitled to make in his business interests. g) There is also no prescribed requirement in law or the Articles for majority shareholders to offer to purchase the Plaintiff's shares, hence no question arises of disregarding his rights or interests. h) Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any act of oppression or disregard of his interests. The present action is an abuse of court process, aimed at unjustly coercing the Defendants. As such, the Defendants pray that the Plaintiff's action be dismissed with costs. The law [12] Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 provides the legal basis for members or debenture holder of a company to seek court intervention if they believe the company's affairs are being conducted or the directors' powers exercised in a S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 manner oppressive to them, or in disregard of his interests. This includes cases where acts, resolutions, or proposals unfairly discriminate against or are prejudicial to them. If the court finds such oppression or disregard, it can make orders to end or remedy the situation, including directing or prohibiting acts, regulating future conduct of the company’s affairs, mandating the purchase of shares or debentures by other members or the company, or even ordering the company to be wound up. Section 346 reads: “(1) Any member or debenture holder of a company may apply to the Court for an order under this section on the ground - (a) that the affairs of the company are being conducted or the powers of the directors are being exercised in a manner oppressive to one or more of the members or debenture holders including himself or in disregard of his or their interests as members, shareholders or debenture holders of the company; or (b) that some act of the company has been done or is threatened or that some resolution of the members, debenture holders or any class of them has been passed or is proposed which unfairly discriminates against or is otherwise prejudicial to one or more of the members or debenture holders, including himself.” [13] In interpreting Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016, it is pertinent to consider that it is in pari materia with Section 181 of the Companies Act 1965, thereby necessitating a review of precedents established under Section 181 to inform our understanding and application of the current law. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [14] The key principles for determining oppression under this provision have been established in various cases. The landmark case of Re Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd; Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Ling Beng Sung [1978] 2 MLJ 227 set the precedent that for a case to fall under this section, there must be provable “oppression” or “disregard.” Mere disagreement with decisions made by those in control is insufficient; it must be shown that the majority’s rule has become oppressive or disregardful of the minority’s interests. The Privy Council held: “…. for the case to be brought within section 181(l)(a) at all, the complaint must identify and prove “oppression” or “disregard”. The mere fact that one or more of those managing the company possess a majority of the voting power and, in reliance upon that power, make policy or executive decisions, with which the complainant does not agree, is not enough. Those who take interests in companies limited by shares have to accept majority ride. It is only when majority rule passes over into rule oppressive of the minority, or in disregard of his interests, that the section can be invoked. As was said in a decision upon the United Kingdom section there must be a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and a violation of the conditions of fair play which a shareholder is entitled to expect before a case of oppression can be made (Elder v Elder & Watson Ltd 1952 SC 49): his Lordships would place the emphasis on “visible”. And similarly disregard” involves something more than a failure to take account of the minority's interest: there must be awareness of that interest and an evident decision to override it or brush it aside or to set at naught the proper company procedure (per Lord Clyde in Thompson v Drysdale 1925 SC 311 315). Neither “oppression” nor “disregard” need be shown by a use of the majority's voting power to vote down the minority: either may be demonstrated by a course of conduct which in some identifiable respect, or at an S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 identifiable point in time, can be held to have crossed the line” [15] The Federal Court in Pan-Pacific Construction Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ngiu-Kee Construction (M) Bhd & Anor [2010] 6 CLJ 721 emphasised that the underlying theme of this legal provision is 'unfairness', and that the court's discretion must be exercised judicially based on rational principles. The Federal Court held: “[27] It may also be noted that from the wordings of s. 181 its basic theme is ‘unfairness.’ However, unfairness ‘does not mean that the court can do whatever the individual judge happens to think fair. The concept of fairness must be applied judicially and the content in which it is given by the courts must be based upon rational principles. “The court... has a very wide discretion, but it does not sit under a palm tree (See: O 'Neill v Philips [1999] 2 All ER 961)” [16] Moreover, the concept of unfair discrimination or prejudice allows the court to consider not only the rights of the members under the company's constitution but also his legitimate expectations arising from agreements and understanding among the members, as seen in Jaya Medical Consultants Sdn Bhd v Island & Peninsular Bhd & Ors [1994] 1 MLJ 520 (High Court). However, as established by the Federal Court in Owen Sim Liang Khui v Piasau Jaya Sdn Bhd & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 113, whether there is oppression, disregard, unfair discrimination, or prejudice is subjective and must be determined according to the facts of each particular case. The Federal Court held: S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 “Now, it is inaccurate to state as a proposition of law that because of the present tense of the language appearing in s 181(l)(a), the oppression complained of must in every case continue right up to the date of the presentation of the petition. Indeed, Lord Wilberforce himself recognized this when he referred to a last minute correction as not having the effect of avoiding an inference of a propensity to oppress. But the reference by his Lordship to a last minute correction is but a mere illustration of a much wider principle. It is this. Paragraph (a) to the first sub-section of s 181 is not, as observed by Lord Wilberforce, directed at specific or particular acts or omissions. It is directed at the nature of the conduct complained of. And where attention is called to particular acts or omissions, it is the effect of these which has to be considered. It is not and has never been the law that the section does not bite where what is complained of is but a single act or omission on the part of the wrongdoer.” Analysis and findings of the court Removal of the Plaintiff from the management and the affairs of the Company [17] The Defendants submit that the Plaintiff's complaint regarding his removal as a signatory of the Maybank account is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as it has been previously addressed in OS 621 and OS 629. They assert there was no violation of the Articles of Association or corporate law in changing the signatory, and no provisions in the Articles mandate a balance of power between majority and minority shareholders. Being a signatory is considered a managerial decision, and the Plaintiff's alleged lack of cooperation in administrative S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 affairs is highlighted. The Defendants also point out the Plaintiff's delay in filing an action for oppression. [18] Furthermore, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's removal as a director of the Company was properly executed in accordance with Section 206(1)(a) CA and Article 69 of the Company's Articles of Association, through a majority vote in an Extraordinary General Meeting. They reference the Plaintiff's prior alleged breach of fiduciary duties and cite the case of Oon Hoon Wah v Noble Global Sdn Bhd & Ors [2014] 9 MLJ 114 (High Court) to argue that the removal of a family member from directorship in a family-owned company, when done by majority decision, is not oppressive. Therefore, they argue that the Plaintiff's removal does not constitute oppression and request dismissal of the suit. [19] In addition, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's wife is a 'ghost employee', never having worked for the Company, and assert that the Plaintiff's claim of paying her a salary constitutes financial fraud. They maintain that the Plaintiff's wife's alleged employment is illegal, referencing cases that support the principle that no legal action can arise from an illegal act. They also note that the matter has been referred to the Director-General of Industrial Relations, suggesting it is not a valid ground for oppression. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [20] Lastly, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff's termination from the Company for not meeting KPIs as a Sales Executive is a matter of domestic managerial decision and does not constitute minority oppression. They reference cases where the courts have upheld the management's right to make decisions in the Company's best interest, indicating that the Plaintiff's remedy lies in a claim for breach of employment, not in a claim of minority oppression. [21] The Plaintiff submits that his removal as a director and signatory of the Company’s bank account, roles he has held since 2003, is unjustified and leaves him without knowledge of the management, affairs, and financial status of the Company. He argues that despite the absence of explicit terms in the Company's Articles of Association, there is a mutual trust and understanding, amounting to a legitimate expectation, that he would be involved in the management and affairs of the Company as long as he remained a shareholder. [22] This legitimate expectation, the Plaintiff argues, is based on the long duration of his appointment as director, suggesting an expectation of continued participation in management, as supported by similar cases like Wong Shee Cheong & Anor v Lee Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors [2011] 1 LNS 666 (High Court). Additionally, the Plaintiff's appointment as director coinciding with his acquisition of shares indicates a mutual understanding of involvement in management, as S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 seen in the case of Wong Kim Yoon v Cheong Kim Hong & Ors [2011] 1 LNS 666 (High Court). The nature of the Company as a family business, where all shareholders are closely related, further reinforces this expectation. Operating as a quasi-partnership, as explained in Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd & Ors [1973] AC 360 (House of Lords) and Tien Ik Enterprises Sdn Bhd & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 769 (Supreme Court), the Plaintiff argues that family members are expected to participate in management. [23] The Plaintiff emphasises that his exclusion from the Company’s management and affairs constitutes oppression, deviating from standards of fair dealing and violating his legitimate expectations as a shareholder. This view is supported by cases like Lew Siew Moi, Datin v Ann Loong Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2012] 10 MLJ 734 (High Court) and Tan Kian Hua v Colour Image Scan Sdn Bhd & Ors [2004] 6 CLJ 174 (High Court), which recognise the right of a shareholder to participate in management based on legitimate expectations. Lastly, the case of Sim Chin Hu v Kerk Han Meng & Ors [2022] MLJU 3404 (High Court) further substantiates the notion that such an expectation can be implied from the conduct of the parties, even in the absence of express agreements. [24] Having duly considered the submissions of both the Plaintiff and the Defendants, I will now proceed to state my findings on the matter at hand. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [25] The court finds the Plaintiff was removed from the management and affairs of the Company and this amounts to oppressive conduct by the Defendants. [26] The court finds that the Plaintiff, who served as a director and a signatory of the Company's bank account since 31.10.2003, was unjustifiably removed from these positions in 2022, leaving him uninformed about the Company's management, affairs, and financial status. Despite no explicit provision in the Company's Memorandum and Articles of Association, it is clear to the court that there was a legitimate expectation based on mutual trust and understanding that the Plaintiff, as a shareholder, would be involved in the Company's management and affairs, making his abrupt removal a serious violation of this implicit agreement. [27] The Plaintiff's legitimate expectation to continue participating in the Company's affairs, arises based on the factors stated as follows. [28] First, the court recognises the significance of the Plaintiff's long-standing role within the Company, having been a director for nearly 19 years since 31.10.2003. It was observed by the High Court in Wong Shee Cheong & Anor v Lee Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors [supra] that when a minority shareholder claims entitlement to participate in a company's management due to a legitimate expectation established over many years of service, the courts tend to uphold that S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 entitlement. In Wong Shee Cheong the petitioners contended that there were legitimate expectations and mutual understandings between them and the majority shareholders regarding joint participation in the management of the company but the respondents denying the existence of any such agreements or understandings. The court found that such agreements and understandings did exist based on long years of joint management until the majority shareholders took steps since 2005 to remove the petitioners from management and run the affairs of the company to benefit themselves. The sudden dismissal of a director with such a long tenure could reasonably be viewed as oppressive. Anantham Kasinather J (as he then was) held as follows: “Secondly, where a minority shareholder alleges entitlement to participate in the management of a company based on a legitimate expectation following many years of appointment, the Courts are inclined to uphold the entitlement. In such circumstances, the sudden removal of a long standing director may amount to oppression (see Tay Bok Choon v. Tahansan Sdn Bhd [1987] CLJ 24 (Rep); [1987] 1 CLJ 441; [1987] 1 MLJ 433). ...” [29] Second, the court notes the timing of the Plaintiff's acquisition of the Company shares in relation to his appointment as a director. The Plaintiff was first appointed as director on the same date he became an initial 30.62% shareholder, i.e. 31.10.2003. He then later increased his shareholding to 49% on 26.8.2011, while continuing as an existing director in the Company from 31.10.2003 onwards. Therefore, the Plaintiff's appointment as director coincided S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 with the date he first became a shareholder, and he continued as director even after increasing his stake to become a 49% shareholder. His directorship pre-dated his becoming a 49% shareholder. The alignment of the Plaintiff's shareholder status with his directorship and management duties evidences an existing mutual understanding among the parties, thus bolstering the Plaintiff's claim of an expectation of continued participation in the Company's management. [30] Third, the court acknowledges the quasi-partnership nature of the Company, underlined by the familial relationships among its shareholders. Within such a quasi-partnership, personal relationships and mutual agreements typically govern operations, thereby validating the Plaintiff's claim of a legitimate expectation to remain involved as long as he is a shareholder. [31] The court notes the argument raised by the Defendants that the concept of quasi-partnership should not apply to this case as it is not pleaded by the Plaintiff. The court finds that it is not an absolute necessity to explicitly invoke the term 'quasi-partnership', provided the material facts suggestive of a quasi-partnership have been satisfactorily pleaded. Order 18 r 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 requires that pleadings should embody a concise summary of the crucial facts supporting a claim or defence rather than the evidentiary support of these facts. In the present case, the Plaintiff has indeed advanced the claim of legitimate expectation, citing S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 quasi-partnership as an instrumental factor. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's representation of the Company as a family business, the clarification of the relationship among parties, and the indication of the existence of mutual understandings and agreements are considered by the court. Thus, the court concludes that the Plaintiff has offered adequate material facts to imply a quasi-partnership nature within the Company. [32] The court also notes the Defendants’ argument that the concept of quasi-partnership is not applicable to the current case as the Plaintiff neither founded the Company nor injected personal capital, but instead inherited shares as a gift, and no formal or oral agreement was ever made that assured the Plaintiff's permanent directorship in the Company. [33] The Defendants submitted that the Company does not qualify as a quasi-partnership, primarily due to the shareholders not being original partners. They have attempted to distinguish the case of Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd & Ors [supra] from the current scenario and leaned on the judgment of Abdul Ravuff Bin Datuk AS Dawood v Pasla Holdings Sdn Bhd [2003] 3 MLJ 296 (Court of Appeal) to counter the Plaintiffs' contention. In Abdul Ravuff, the court rejected the plaintiff’s application because he did not inject capital into the company but he got the shares as a result of a gift. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [34] Upon careful examination, this court is inclined towards the Plaintiff's arguments. Drawing from the Ebrahimi case, it becomes evident that the conversion of an existing partnership into a company is not the only route to form a quasi-partnership. Lord Wilberforce said: “It would be impossible, and wholly undesirable, to define the circumstances in which these considerations may arise. Certainly the fact that a company is a small one, or a private company, is not enough. There are very many of these where the association is a purely commercial one, of which it can safely be said that the basis of association is adequately and exhaustively laid down in the articles. The superimposition of equitable considerations requires something more, which typically may include one, or probably more, of the following elements: (i) an association formed or continued on the basis of a personal relationship, involving mutual confidence - this element will often be found where a pre-existing partnership has been converted into a limited company; (ii) an agreement, or understanding, that all. or some (for there may be 'sleeping' members), of the shareholders shall participate in the conduct of the business: (iii) restriction upon the transfer of the members' interest in the company - so that if confidence is lost, or one member is removed from management, he cannot take out his stake and go elsewhere. It is these, and analogous, factors which may bring into play the just and equitable clause, and they do so directly, through the force of the words themselves” [35] The referenced section from Ebrahimi serves to illustrate the flexibility in recognising a Company as a quasi- partnership. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [36] This point of view finds further reinforcement in the ruling of the Supreme Court case of Supreme Court in Tien Ik Enterprises Sdn Bhd. The Supreme Court held that the Ebrahimi principles on the importation of equitable principles could be applied even if not all Ebrahimi elements were present: “We are of the view that the learned judge was correct in her interpretation of the judgment of Lord Wilberforce. It is not essential and therefore not a condition that before the Ebrahimi principles can be applied, the elements or at least one of the elements mentioned by Lord Wilberforce must be present. To interpret in the way contended by the learned counsel would be putting something in the judgment which is not there.” [37] The Defendants' reliance on the Abdul Ravuff Bin Datuk AS Dawood case, where the petitioner in that case was not actively involved in the Company's management or held any control over it, is not applicable in this instant case. The Plaintiff's extensive involvement in the management and the affairs of the Company for nearly 19 years is noteworthy, thus differentiating the case at hand from the one quoted by the Defendants. [38] In addition, the implied agreement and mutual understanding among shareholders, as exemplified in Tan Kian Hua v Colour Image Scan Sdn Bhd & Ors [2004] 6 CLJ 174, further reinforce the notion of a quasi-partnership. In this case the petitioner contended that there were agreements and understandings between him and the majority shareholders regarding his participation in the S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 management of the company as director. The respondents denied any such agreements and taking steps since 2002 to exclude the petitioner from management, stop repayments owed to him, restrict his access, remove benefits given to him, etc. The High Court found that such agreements did exist based on the petitioner minority shareholder's participation in management based on evidence of his directorship and management role from 2000 per discussions with the majority shareholder, uninterrupted joint control for years till sudden exclusion in 2002 and the common understanding in family companies of joint management by shareholder siblings. His longtime role, abruptly ended in 2002, indicated consensus on his management rights, breached by removal. In the case at bar, based on the long years of the Plaintiff’s unhindered participation as director from the very outset of becoming shareholder, which lasted almost 19 years, coupled with his directorship preceding and then continuing after he became the second largest shareholder, makes it reasonable to infer the parties intended the Plaintiff to play a managerial role in the Company for as long as he retained shares. This gives rise to a legitimate expectation of management participation based on how the parties actually conducted themselves over an extended period. [39] Taking into account the principles outlined in Sim Chin Hu v Kerk Han Meng & Ors [2022] MLJU 3404, it becomes evident that the Plaintiff's expectation to be involved in the Company's management and hold a directorship can be S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 reasonably inferred from his conduct. In this case, minority shareholder Sim Chin Hu filed a petition against CJ Polymer Sdn Bhd and its majority shareholders for relief from alleged oppressive conduct, contending a quasi-partnership arrangement existed between him and founder member Kerk Han Meng giving rise to a legitimate expectation of management participation. Sim claimed his exclusion from directorship and termination as General Manager over certain disputed transactions, without reasonable offer to purchase his shares, disregarded his interests. Meanwhile, CJ Polymer and Kerk alleged misconduct by Sim instead. The High Court ruled a quasi-partnership did exist between the founders, and Sim's removal sans fair exit option was oppressive, granting reliefs including a buy out of his shares. Ong Chee Kwan J observed: “[15] The underlying understanding between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant was that they would operate the 4th Defendant jointly as equal partners and that both of them would be involved in the management and development of the business of the 4th Defendant. Through the years, this understanding and underlying arrangement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant was maintained and they were in fact successful in building the 4th Defendant and its operations to the level it is today, with both of them being fully aware of the activities run by each other for and on behalf of the 4th Defendant.” …… [74] An obligation on the part of the Defendants or an expectation on the part of the Plaintiff that he be allowed to be involved or participate in the management of the company and to be a director may be implied or inferred from the conduct of the S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 parties, even in the absence of any express or written assurances or specific undertakings.” [40] The Defendants contend that the removal of the Plaintiff as a signatory of the Maybank account was a managerial decision justified by the Plaintiff's lack of cooperation, was not in breach of any Articles or legal stipulations, and is barred from litigation by the doctrine of res judicata, and they also assert that the Plaintiff's removal as a director was conducted properly in accordance with majority rule and existing provisions, and cannot be deemed oppressive. [41] The court is of the view that the two incidents of the Plaintiff's removal as a signatory of the Maybank account and his removal from directorship are actually combined instances of the Defendants' actions to systematically marginalise the Plaintiff from the Company's operations and management. It is open for the court to consider these as acts of oppression even if these were previously argued in OS 629 and OS 621. These issues are not barred by res judicata as the matter has not been conclusively adjudicated, given that the actions were discontinued without a final judgment. [42] Further on the change in bank signatories, the court finds the Defendants' allegations of the Plaintiff's lack of cooperation in administrative affairs to be vague and unsubstantiated. This cannot be used to justify the change in bank signatories. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [43] The court also makes the following additional findings: a) There is no inordinate delay in filing this action as the Defendants allege as the Plaintiff filed this action following a series of oppressive actions, culminating in February 2023. b) Although the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's removal from directorship is legal, following the majority rule, the CA and the Articles of Association, the court accepts that such removal was oppressive and unfairly discriminatory, given the Plaintiff’s legitimate expectation to participate in the Company's management as a shareholder. c) The court finds no relevance in the Defendants' attempt to associate the Plaintiff's removal from directorship to OS 621 as it does not constitute any claims regarding a breach of fiduciary duty. [44] The court thus concludes that the Plaintiff's exclusion from the management and affairs of the Company constitutes a divergence from standards of fair dealing and an infringement of the principles of fairness that a shareholder can reasonably anticipate. This exclusion constitutes an oppressive act, discriminates against the Plaintiff unfairly, and contravenes an explicit or implied understanding of his involvement in the Company's management. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 No exit offer to the Plaintiff [45] The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff's loss of trust and confidence, by itself, does not meet the criteria for oppression under Section 346 CA, as exemplified in Low Tien Sang & Sons Holding Sdn Bhd & Ors v How Kem Chin & Ors [2000] 2 MLJ 334 (High Court) and Liaw Yeou Huah v Wong Kee Kian & Ors [2016] MLJU 1589 (High Court), arguing that this claim lacks the necessary elements of oppressive action and disregard for minority proprietary rights. Therefore, they contend that the Plaintiff's suit aims to force a buy-out for a collateral purpose and to unjustly enrich themselves, referencing Re Bellador Silk Ltd [1965] 1 All ER 667 (Chancery Division) to highlight that a petition with the intent of exerting pressure for a collateral purpose is an abuse of the court's process. [46] The Plaintiff submits that after being excluded from the management and affairs of the Company, he offered his shares to the First Defendant for purchase, but this offer was ignored. The Defendants failed to provide any counter- offer. The Plaintiff references the case of Tob Chee Hoong v Tob Chee Choong & Ors [2017] 1 LNS 1256, where Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali J (as he then was) ruled that exclusion from management without a genuine, fair, and reasonable buy-out offer constitutes oppression. Therefore, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ failure to make a buy-out offer following his exclusion from management is S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 undeniably an act of oppression, as established in the cited case. [47] After carefully reviewing the arguments presented by both the Plaintiff and the Defendants, I am prepared to present my findings on these issues raised. [48] Following the High Court decision in Tob Chee Hoong v Tob Chee Choong & Ors [supra], the court accepts that any exclusion from management without a genuine, fair, and reasonable buy-out offer can be considered oppressive. In this case, minority shareholder Tob Chee Hoong filed an oppression action against the majority shareholders and directors of the family-owned investment holding company Teletone Enterprise Sdn Bhd and its wholly-owned subsidiary Orchard Circle Sdn Bhd. He contended that a fundamental understanding existed between him and his brother Tob Chee Choong for joint management participation following his late father's pronouncement. However, after gaining control, the majority shareholders/directors excluded Tob Chee Hoong from management and operations without any reasonable buy- out offer, violating this understanding between the original partners. The High Court ruled the Defendants' actions amounted to minority oppression, granting relief via a share buy-out order. Mohd Nazlan J held: S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 “Even if my assessment on the plaintiff having successfully proven oppression is less than accurate, I would additionally rely on that House of Lords decision of O’Neill v. Phillips which is also an authority for the proposition that any such exclusion from management would still not be construed as being unfairly prejudicial if the majority make a fair and reasonable offer to buy out the minority. This makes much practical sense for where relationship of trust and confidence has broken down, and where oppressive and prejudicial conduct is apparent, there may not necessarily be oppression in the sense stated in the statute book if a genuine, fair and reasonable buy-out offer is made to the complainant who would probably welcome the exit option.” [49] In the instant case, the Defendants have not made any offer to purchase the Plaintiff's shares despite the Plaintiff's repeated attempts to initiate a buy-out after being excluded from management. The failure of the Defendants to reciprocate and provide an exit option to the Plaintiff demonstrates their oppressive behaviour. [50] Moreover, the House of Lords decision in O'Neill v Phillips [1999] 2 ALL ER 961, as followed in Tob Chee Hoong, supports the notion that exclusion from management would not be considered unfairly prejudicial if the majority offers a fair and reasonable buy-out to the minority. The rationale behind this principle is that when the relationship of trust and confidence between shareholders breaks down and oppressive conduct becomes apparent, a genuine buy-out offer can provide an amicable resolution and an exit option for the minority shareholder. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [51] In the present case, the Defendants' conduct, including the removal of the Plaintiff from management positions and his refusal to offer a buy-out, has clearly caused the Plaintiff to feel unwelcome and marginalised within the Company. This oppressive behavior, combined with the lack of any genuine effort by the Defendants to address the situation, justifies the court's intervention. [52] The court finds that the Defendants' actions and decisions, particularly his refusal to make a buy-out offer to the Plaintiff, are not in the best interest of the Company or its shareholders as a whole. By excluding the Plaintiff from management without providing a fair and reasonable exit option, the Defendants have created a situation where the Plaintiff is trapped in an unenviable position, unable to fully participate in the affairs of the Company while also being denied the opportunity to exit the group. [53] Considering the equitable principles of fairness and the need to protect minority shareholders from oppressive conduct, it is just and equitable for the majority shareholders to buy out the shares of the minority they have excluded from management. This would not only provide a fair resolution for the Plaintiff but also ensure that the affairs of the Company are conducted in a manner that upholds the rights and interests of all shareholders. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 Breach of mutual agreement and understanding between the shareholders [54] The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have breached a mutual agreement that has been in place since 2004. This agreement stipulates that family members of the Company's shareholders would receive a salary without physically appearing at the Company. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct in disregarding this agreement amounts to oppression and a blatant disregard of the Plaintiff's interests as a shareholder. [55] The Defendants, in his defence, argue that the arrangement for the payment of salaries to family members without physical appearance at the Company is illegal and cannot be enforced. They rely on two cases, namely Lee Nyan Hon & Brothers Sdn Bhd v Metro Charm Sdn Bhd [2009] 6 MLJ 450 (Court of Appeal] and Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato' Shazryl Eskay bin Abdullah [2015] 5 MLJ 619 (Federal Court), to support his contention that the agreement is unlawful. [56] Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, as well as the relevant legal principles and the cited cases, this court finds in favour of the Plaintiff. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 [57] The Defendants' reliance on Lee Nyan Hon & Brothers Sdn Bhd and Merong Mahawangsa is misplaced. These cases are distinguishable and do not pertain to the specific facts of this case. Lee Nyan Hon & Brothers Sdn Bhd involves tenancy matters, while Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd pertains to a contract for influence peddling. These cases do not address the issue of a mutual agreement among shareholders regarding the payment of salaries to family members without physical appearance at the Company. [58] The court recognises that the agreement in question does not contravene any statutory laws or render the arrangement illegal. It is an agreement reached among the shareholders for the benefit of the family members, and it has been in practice since 2004. The Plaintiff has provided compelling evidence to substantiate the existence of this mutual agreement, including payment slips, EA forms, EPF forms, and bank statements. This is unlike the case of Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chi Wall Eric Yip And Another [2014] QDC 72, BC201408517 which concerns an employer obtaining a freezing order against a former employee for alleged fraud and misappropriation of company funds. In that case, the defendant was accused of creating fictitious “ghost employees”, making unauthorised payments to himself, and channeling over $400,000 of his employer's money into accounts under his control. However, the fraudulent activities involved false employees and payments to non-existent individuals, while in the current case, the agreement for salary payment to family S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 members without physical appearance is legitimate and supported by evidence. Furthermore, the Defendants' own admission that the Plaintiff's wife and the parents of the LCC were receiving monthly payments in accordance with this agreement strengthens the Plaintiff's case. [59] The termination of the Plaintiff's wife and the Plaintiff himself as employees of the Company, while separate issues, are connected to the breach of the mutual agreement. The Defendants' decision to cease the payment of salaries to the Plaintiff's wife and the Plaintiff after his removal from the management and the board of directors is in clear violation of the agreement and demonstrates a disregard for the Plaintiff's interests. [60] Based on the evidence and submissions presented, it is evident that the Defendants' conduct constitutes oppression and a breach of the mutual agreement and understanding. The Defendants' failure to honour the agreement, despite his awareness of its existence and his own involvement in the payment of salaries to family members, is a clear abuse of power and injurious to the Plaintiff's rights as a shareholder. Breakdown of mutual trust and confidence [61] Considering the cumulative effect of the Plaintiff’s grievances (the Plaintiff's removal from management, the Defendants' failure to offer a buy-out, and his breach of the S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 mutual agreement), this court finds that there has been a significant breakdown of mutual trust and confidence between the parties. The complete control and management of the Company by LCC, LWL and LEH, despite the Plaintiff holding 49% of the shares, further exacerbate the power imbalance and the disregard for the Plaintiff's rights and interests. This imbalance and exclusion from decision-making processes prevent the Plaintiff from effectively safeguarding his interests and accessing vital information concerning the Company's affairs and financial status. [62] Regarding the issue of the buy-out of the Plaintiff's shares by the majority shareholders, this court concurs with the opinion of Lord Hoffman in Re a Company [1992] 2 All ER 961, as cited in the case of Sim Chin Hu v Kerk Han Meng & Ors [supra]. Lord Hoffman expressed that when exclusion from management is instigated by majority shareholders, it constitutes unfair prejudice if the minority shareholder is excluded without a reasonable offer to purchase his shares. Ong Chee Kwan J observed: “[121] However, Lord Hoffman opined that where the exclusion from the management is caused by the majority shareholders, then there is unfair prejudice if the minority shareholder is excluded without a reasonable offer made to purchase his shares. It is not fair to the minority shareholder who has been excluded and who usually will have lost his employment, to keep his assets locked in the company.” S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 [63] In this case, the Plaintiff, as a minority shareholder, has suffered unjust exclusion from management, resulting in the loss of employment and benefits that should rightfully be afforded to him. It would be inequitable to require the Plaintiff to retain his ownership stake in the Company while being denied the ability to participate meaningfully or reap any benefits from his shares. [64] Therefore, in light of the findings and considerations mentioned above, this court allows Enclosure 1 which includes an order that the majority shareholders initiate a fair and reasonable buy-out of the Plaintiff's shares in the Company. Such an order will provide the Plaintiff with just compensation for his ownership stake and serve as a remedy for the oppressive treatment he has endured. Conclusion [65] Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented, this court finds in favour of the Plaintiff's application and that the Plaintiff has on a balance of probavilities successfully established his case of minority oppression under Section 346 of the CA. [66] Regarding the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in prayer 2 of the OS, my assessment leads me to conclude that the order for the buy out of the Plaintiff’s shares by the Defendants is suitable. In line with the the intention of resolving the issues raised, I have no hesitation in applying Section 346(2)(c) of S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 the CA. Consequently, I support the issuance of a buy-out order directed at the Defendants concerning the Plaintiff's shares. The essential condition here is that these shares should be appraised at his fair value as of 10.10.2022 which is the date of the Plaintiff’s removal as a director. This valuation is to be conducted by an appointed independent assessor, considering the status of the Company as an active business without any reduction in value due to the Plaintiff’s minority stake. [67] Therefore, this court orders: 1. The First Defendant, either on his own or jointly with the Second and/or Third Defendants: a) Has conducted the affairs of the Fourth Defendant and/or exercised the powers of its directors in a manner oppressive to the Plaintiff and/or disregarding the interests of the Plaintiff as a member of the Fourth Defendant. b) Has achieved and/or caused to be done, and/or threatened to achieve or cause to be done to the Fourth Defendant a situation that has and/or will unfairly discriminate against or otherwise harm the Plaintiff as a member of the Fourth Defendant. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 2. a) The First Defendant and/or the Second and/or Third Defendants are to purchase all the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. at a fair value to be assessed by an Independent Auditor, whose appointment is as stated in paragraphs (b) or (c). b) An Independent Auditor shall be agreed upon and appointed by the Plaintiff and the First Defendant and/or the Second and/or Third Defendants within two weeks from the date this court issues an Order for this Summons, for the purpose of assessment and determination of the price of the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. c) If the Plaintiff and the First Defendant and/or the Second and/or Third Defendants cannot agree on the appointment of an Independent Auditor, then the parties are free to apply to this court for the purpose of submitting the name of an Independent Auditor to this court to enable the court to appoint an Independent Auditor for the purpose of assessment and determination of the price of the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 d) Any Independent Auditor appointed following paragraphs (b) or (c) above must be allowed by the Defendants to enter the office and buildings of the Defendants to enable the Independent Auditor to take possession of all minute books, any accounting documents, any books, or any documents of LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd., and/or to take possession of any other books, any documents, or any correspondence and make copies thereof concerning LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. for the purpose of assessment and determination of the price of the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. e) The Independent Auditor appointed following paragraphs (b) or (c) above must complete the share valuation activity of the Plaintiff in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. within two months from the date the Independent Auditor takes possession of all minute books, any accounting documents, any books, or any documents of LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. and/or to take possession of any other books, any documents, or any correspondence and make copies thereof concerning LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 f) Once the Independent Auditor appointed following paragraphs (b) or (c) above has completed the valuation activity and has determined the price of the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd., the First Defendant and/or the Second and/or Third Defendants must purchase all the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. within one month from the date the Independent Auditor determines the price of the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. g) The cost of the Independent Auditor and the cost of the share valuation activity of the Plaintiff in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. shall be borne by the First to the Third Defendants. h) For the purposes of paragraphs (b) to (f) herein, the Independent Auditor appointed following paragraphs (b) or (c) above shall determine the price of the Plaintiff's shares in LTL Industries Sdn. Bhd. as of 10.10.2022. 3. All consequential and incidental costs shall be paid by the First to the Third Defendants. 4. The parties are free to make applications; and S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 5. The costs of RM15,000.00 subject to allocation fees shall be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. [68] It is so ordered. 15 December 2023 ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD Judge Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) Counsel: For the Plaintiff: ET Low (Messrs Cheong Wai Meng & Van Buerle) For the Defendant: Yvonne How with Catherine Hong (Messrs How & Hospera) S/N qT5bJKEYUysfmCUk7LAmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AB-12BNCvC-10-06/2022

PERAYU 1. ) PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD 2. ) PROJEK PENYELENGGARAAN LEBUHRAYA BERHAD (PROPEL) RESPONDEN 1. ) ZAKARIA BIN HAMID (Bapa kandung kepada simati, AZIZI BIN ZAKARIA) 2. ) GAYAH BINTI DOCHIK ( Ibu kandung kepada simati, AZIZI BIN ZAKARIA)

Civil Procedure - Appeal against liability and quantum - Fatal accident - Deceased involved in an accident on PLUS highway - Metal object on the highway - S.5 Federal Roads (Private Management ) Act 1984 - Whether highway authority was negligent - Whether there is breach of duty of care - Whether highway authority had taken all reasonable measures to ensure safety of highway users - Appeal against liability dismissed - Monthly dependency claim - Appeal by Plaintiffs against quantum allowed

20/12/2023

YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c825ba0c-19cc-4d29-8e80-192783d02093&Inline=true

20/12/2023 20:07:44 AB-12BNCvC-10-06/2022 Kand. 36 S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N DLolyMwZKU2OgBkng9Agkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m 15 Aa—12aNcvc—1u—os/2022 DALAM MAHKAMAM TINGGI MALAVA DI YAIFING DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN RAYUAN sIvIL No. AB-12BNCVC-1n-D6/2022 ANTARA 1. PRDJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD z. FRDJEK FENYELENGGARAAN LEEUHRAVA EERHAD (PROPEL) ...PERAVU-PERAVU DAN 1. ZAKARIA am HAMID (NO. KIP: 431190!-D2-5559] (Bnpa knndung kupada Simali. AZIZI am ZAKARIA] (NO. K/P: s1nx22-:22-5145) 2. GAVAM BINTI uocnm (NO. K/P: e5nno1-nz-5142) (lbu kandung kepada Simali, AZIZI am ZAKARIA) (N0. K/P: 910322-D2-5145) MRESPONDEN-RESPONDEN Dalnm Porkara DALAM MAHKAMAH SESVEN DI TAIPIN5 DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN GUAMAN sIvIL N0: AB-A5JKJ-145-11/2020 ANTARA 1. ZAKARIA EIN HAMID (No. KIP: 4an9oa.n2.55s9) (Bans kandunq kupnda Slmall, AZIZI am ZAKARIA) (NO. KIF: 9111322-DZ»5745) 1 5w uLu4vMwzKuzogBmqvAw.w Nab! 5....‘ INNDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl VII mum Wm m 1; m 15 2. GAVAH BINTI DOCHIK (no. K/P: usom-n2-5142) (um. kandung kepada Simali. AZIZI am ZAKARIA] (N0. K/P: 910322-oz-5145) ...I=LAINrIF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. PROJEK LEBUHRAVA USANASAMA BERHAD 2. FROJEK FENVELENGGARAAN LEEUHRAVA BERHAD (PROFEL) 3. MUHAMMAD AIMER am JAMIL (NO. K/P: 931005-02-5211) ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The pamss wm be re4errea to as they were aune Ssssians own as both Plalnnfls and Delendants havs appeaxea ana cross-appealed against ma wnora decwsmn of ma Ssssmns Cuuri Judge 1504) dshvered an 24.5 2022. Tne SCJ man had vuunu ma 1“ and 2'-1 Defendants, Pmgsk Lebuhnaya usanasama and (PLUS) dan Prqek Penyehanggaraan Lehuhraya Eemad (PROPEL) name lur me aonaanu an ma mght at 27 4 2013 mm IragicaHy cost me we u1A1Izi Em Zakaria (“lhe deceased") al me age a! 27. the emesl son M me Plammvs. Lmbmry was appomnned al 30% ]omUy agamsl me 1-‘ and 2'“ Debndanls whereas no nabumy was imputed agamst me 3'" Defendant, Muhammad Azmsr hm Jamal‘ ma omar party wha was nvoxvau In me acuidenl that fateful mgm at KM177 a ma NorII1—Suu|h Hwghway (southbound) For ease 11! reference, |w||| relar In me 1- and 2'“ nevanuancs as mus and PROPEL‘ respeclwew, m 0115 IN uLu4vMwzKu20gBmwIAykw warn sum IHIWDIY Mu as used m mm na nvVfl\ruVV|y MW; dun-mm VII .nuna pm 15 2o 25 nullwlg |o suggesz that he was blased against any or lhe parlles. His evidenoewas covrobcraled by sl=1‘s evidence. lneidrensie analysis (P8? and also by me evidence 0! sm. nieieiere, i did noi see ii fil |o inieriere with lne iaciusl findings oi lne (rial iudge beuuse she had given a reasoned iiidgineni and applied ins lelevanl news in arriving at her decision: Tangku DIQD Ibrahlm P90’: Ttllgku Indra Petr: V Pitta Perdana aermd L Anpr Appeal [2013] 2 cu M1. [22] There were a lew case laws relerred by lhe nsrlies izerlsinirig 10 PLUS in me pssl which I will elsborsle riere as Iwss oi me view lnsl lney could be s nguislied iruni lne iscls: where lrie Delendanis submilled were applicable lo ihe piesenl appeals. I am niindlul oi the general principles in aiinisldo v Ernmpn (supra) as well as me law that a slalutary duty Mcars did rim inean mac llieie existed an amoniaiie du|y in epirinian law by ins releiranl aiiliionly ipwarda me early or class of peieons lne slaiiile was inlended ier: Gornnge V calderdals ulerrispeliran Eamugh canneil [znnq 1WLR1I)57, man] UK Heirs. av Lords 15 An exceplidn to this would be where lhe sumdiily has done a posilive act in me nignway lo cresle a danger. (or example ii ii installed sornelning on lhe highway which inadvenenlly caused me aeclden|. In such a case a ennirnen law duly does arise, in accordance wiln ordinary principles oilan law. willioiil me posllws ael by Ina eiiinpmy, a plainllil ceniiol plead uie epiiiiripn law may or care lor an piriissien py iris aimiorily [23] danger due lo want oi repair. and a lrarisienl danger due lo elernenis as I also socepllhal n dislinclipn naslo be dmwn belweerl ai pernisnenl have been eslabllshed in case laws. Eurnlldc V enimon (supra) Dlplack LJ In H1a| case held that “Repair and maintenance Mus rm:/miss n in Dlalyhwzkuzflgawwinkw Nuns s.n.i In-vlhnrvilll as in... M mm the nflnlnnllly MIME flnunnlnl VI] nFluNG Wflxl 15 in 15 providing an adequate system af drainage tor the read and it was In this respecl that the judge round the highway aulhntily had failed in their duty In maintain the highway The Cclunwas urged that theoeuns do net have the means to assess what highway authority should do 5 noe it Involved costs. A balancing exercise is required between the Vlsk oi iniury en the one hand and en the other hand, the costs/resources required to eliminate the risk ia. the test or ‘reasonable practicability“ Edwards v National Coal Board [tutu t KE 7M and Better v Quantum clothing Group [mt] 1 wm 1003 This was axacfly the argument ol the lzielendants, naniety, It was net practical tor PLUS and PRDPEL persunrlal to go on a fuoflaatvol to ensure the road is tree fmm lallen debris etc [24] So we have to consider next whether the authority here has assumed re5DOl'IsIbl|IfY to protect its infrastructure-users (whose numhers come up to the millions, trie Com is entitled Ia take iudicial notioe at this iaot), lroni harm when using the highway. or whether it has 'crealed‘ any dangers «rent the management and inaintenanoe of the highway: Go ge's case (sllplaj. A highway authonly may not be liable in a tort users so lerig as the authority die not create the tort flsell. nt [25] coming to the Malaysian cases. i have relerred to a number at cases that involved mus wnieh were oiled to by the parlles as well as lrom my own ieseereli. Comparison has been rnade in the torn. ola table below tor ease or relerenee: No. Case Him! and lzlrztlwt Dcclslan IRIMIIIIS i Fuimllnlllulilusnmyilrbnv. s an Deuit, Melaka . Frfliek Lebuhrlyl um. —sirayeaoiwa..nirnwayraiiiaeiwiinirie ' SEIIIIII [NET] 4 CL! 54 °°‘°“’d ‘ W’ . breach in in. Venung syeiani :2 in DLn4yMwZKU20gBhiwiA1tw ‘Nair s.n.i r-vlhnrwm be used a mm re nflnlhallly MIME dnunvllnl via aFlt.ING WM! V Delerndanl found tn be name cur naglwglncn, mm at gummy duly, breach M mmn — men had bwenenned hmke« Iermes but Ins umenasm ma mu m n m «a lake axln msawm -fiuxezahlg om wmssm. wmdd occur — mm m genem damngeg, special damages and Was: aldeendency nflowsd Fmjuk L-but-n [2o1111ocu an . um s. can an v. um mus Hussln A Mohnmnd Alllf , wan cam Kuma Lumvur — spam hum sesuons Cuun — aoddem caused vy carcass ov a wwld bcavon Ins Nahway — so; apvlutuznpd Iuabflny al 10-1. M) an phinldf mm 9054 Lu aaaamm . nus annealed . HO found area were me uwldem hawened was no: Izvonem wHd ammals — vussammy the ammal any n: my under Ins cam» . Hc fuund dalandam nu| ma mm umsu :5 Tfummnn Mum R-ma v Lnhuhrayi Uuhuaml a-m-1 [znm - semen: com sq. Palam - 2 momrrydus crishnd am hllflng . fnlbn mm M: has 1-ma mun lmmrl ma vlamllfls were uname In vmve melr clam: ,— conuadmkxns m «esumumes or me ’ mammv wunam: -cowl held Ilwas Impolsibls «arm. sun D? m. dovmdam in mm and mmedlllely remav: ma mum branch . Plamlifls avbealed Prank Ihe mm: am Ahmlfl Lunumn u..»..x.m Bormn v mm ; um am Hnshlm (Iulnn us win aw-nu-nu at mm Kamall ummn. a-mud) [1013] ML!!! 2011 .High Own, Ipoh -A9935‘ Vmm smxms Conn . nus lmmd in be may. name —motx>4w=I\s(onlHd3d mm a piece olwood ,u,, appeal, the JC reversed ma rmamg as man wave nontradlcmunx «mm nu ma ma-nee by me man-um .;n-«mu m -stahhsh nsghgence sm uldyhwzkuzogsxnwhmw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Lss Yvav-I sun am an mu lam v Nathan all uumayan 1... .. n[2Il1I]8 mu m » Hun own. man -awe-I hum Susiunx own .PLus wax me am Fnspmdnm ,sm «mm: the R1 and R] In a; mum Name and exam-.\m|ed nus —Iatal acumen: and the cause of n was 2 Mes man had mm: 01! «mm R15 mfler -Jo lwnd Mus m L75 eauany name and awumunnd mama Iv so-so . mus tznnwl avoid u.mm~, .5 mad cnmpfianne wam respmse nme In nrevem even! {mm hapnenm and not In use me [an Inn they were male a\moi1 vmmeduately is me masm V mus awealed to ma Own of Awsal (GOA) . cm vivusbd Ihi HC mum an a m zms Ahmad Run Yahyl s Anar V Pmjnk Lthuhnyn Llsnhnn .am:[2o21muu 14:1 .H\gh Dunn‘ 1 may .flppefi\ imm Mag arms‘: cmm —r‘.ause nl sudden! was an Yvon mm on me mihway wmm me my Blalnmv ouuki not mu: m «me -mIs5PWBc\:n0n av cam . mm mm ramuvad «am the suns by wmkam km 5:: managsd ta mmum Dhamgrsnhs M u mm M: mmprnna, smwvnu me aa|e and lime and Ina uwdsnea was admitted m - J0 ow-d am plamtlfl up be 507. mug and nus an-/. .PL|JS applllld mm om . cm ammved we order oi the ac on 29 9 zuzz Projuk L-huhuyl unmum. mm v Abdul ArJmJohn bin Abdullah [2012] mm 1151 .Hrgh Cami, Juhnr Bahm -when! Vmm Sessmns Court 7 mm.“ mused try momrcyuvsx uasmng mm a wooden mask on me msi>vwiIya¢n1gN.vsrydarkar\a nu ugmms: -50: «mm PLUS1a be100‘/uluhls -nus apuaw sm uldyhwzkuzogsxnwhmw ,4 mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm m m A rm namy afluwed ms avhaal ray mm-ng ma Immmt ul damages . Hm eeaepemum lumlny 31 m. an me pminm and m-/. m nus s. uuhan-med reman Em and -Megm-em ceun Rembau v Fmjck Luhuhuyl . mvk:my:\is1 uaveflmg at 23a em. Uslhulmn Huh-d (nus) cnndn.mnverydnlkindnn\ighlmg zm unuum V uasnea ma Dlaslic Deflel: an lhe mwhway — own found me Wamm had Proved ms nvavm (ca-n-gas and mlunai) :. no moorwxberlcwes -mm Fllmlflfs can .119 cnnlnhmnly neghgence . nevendann ma-/. heme V’ not known WPLUS aunemed [231 The above cases make up mat a man oracuun at me negligence suns agamsl mus since we inoepunn more man an years ago. Luakmg at mese cases, since from me me 01 PIrimal:'s case n appeared that nul much has changed wwlh mus and/or FROFEL m terms of its outlook m raped onhe duly av care um i\ owed to mgrvway users. The iudgment ailhe learned ac at me Ipoh High coun (as his Lordship men was),wh1ch I agree with whole-neanadry. in me case ov LBS Yr-vousupra) statsd me pounce auocmny: -[271 Nlmun new ml, mahkamih ml berpendlrian Viki: mengznm kzlihaan emu respomien keflga dx mxaax kemalnngan 2a miml sebpas spa memhunl xapman aoau enam mm aewepea sm aan sm menemna makmmax mengenav kemalangan wxanuan en yang nuanenau. lni kerana 20 mm am. enam m\nIL naua sam saa| sskalmun Mak dzpz| menwubah apaana. lm Kenna Wuak rssbuhgsn kalma nma dw man kama\am1an:e!sDis1oama\anuin Keunaan pmlk vsspnndln kahga pkapun dnnngv flangan pm: penye\ama\ yang \erha\k pen: $2137-Inn lelwrvggwll max mangubah spa-ape, flan max dapal mengembafikan nyawn wan... marlgsa yang ls\ah lelknrhan, kelnru pmex respnrvden kewa uha selenaa kemnhngan berlaku mm yum . gm dlbangkukan oleh Mahkamah lm dalam Denahaluman mi. 15 em DLn4yMwzKu20gBxnwiAmw «me s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm SISTEM wzucssnww KEMALANGAN LEBUHRAYA I251 Fanflquna dan Dansundah Vabuhriyi man dnmaukan ua-mu. lanmluvmimb maswvg-maslnq Ta0<a\a berada an xebumaya. vava Pnnaguna 5 mmakvah mumamm mam. knnduaan an pemandu sen: uliula nemanmn memmuh! sew. kehendnkynna dnzinnkan men undanammam [29] Du mm Mswmen mugs Wla‘ scum pemeqam Kansas! Lehuhmya urmsanaxan, admah unalapkan uannuunmavab vans: wamb mpatum no Tanmlumllawab vu mam banyik Imhk uumamkan, namun dahm mmm kes an hadapan mamqmah mu, lugu dam tangwvslawab V3$P'~1Hd5n kgvg: Alrmuukhh mswujudkan um... ldmhmyl yang mnmtmlahkan plmlnduan aelamal yang mefipml keadnan pemumn lebuhrnya yg sehmal am behas can seem. henluk hahaya (roazam) aklhal kcwujuflan bemasmw (deb!/5). I30] Mahkamah W mak menaflkan amara man darn lanpsunsllavrab responden ksma sebaqaw pamagang koniasv perwulvian Lebuhraya Utari» Salatan mam. bagl msmankan wujudnya makwm banluan dan nurimungan mm mmvgsa kamflangnn nun melekz ynlvu hevhndapnn 1.2 mm spa-spa mnsalnh mm. mm on lebuhnayn Mahkamah um memhua|IlIx1lcralno1me bahawn meumvme mm.“ ax Iehuhvaya ym seals ma yam: amubumun olsh responder: kwwa amnl ba\k Adalah dlakuu naruwa wvdakan mhak veswrvdan mga mam. Im mam vsnyeleuasiraan «urapan Iabuhlayfi‘ kvwuludan mndaan mam bag: memuen barman kepada 15 plrvggurla hhuhviyl‘ puny-lsnggarsln palkakinn xabunmy. Uvrghwuy Iumilurexb‘ dun nuga penyeaim kawasan re)-m| am nawax, mempakan sehahawan am [2019] s MLA 767 at 779|>eIIyeduaen persemamn Vehuhraya mm smamal danlenzmm Lsare mmweamgnway) varvw Ielah dflaksarukzn dengan sempuma. an Isa Mahkamah m. was flap!“ mwandsn mg: pa. mewflllldksn mun Pengmusarl mm Lzhuhriyn (Trnlfic Management Centre) rmlc‘) beruus.n| .1. suhang yang mula bempenasw saiak mhun zoos Funfisl mama we im adaleh unmk menguflp dart menyebelxan msklumm mm secara ma/—lrIne new as penwus... mm Iehuhriya yanw eflsyen sen: mewumxan mekanlime barman yang 'm.:am haw per-w-ma lehuhraya we mlsnqkabkan uanuan Deramzn «mm din tsrcanwm nan Amenka syanm Esmwum. Pa-anus. swnzmm dan Jemlan. mc ma manggunsuawt: nmgummn pimhlxn mum": lrnnsuuli syxtlm rmllk .upm..1.n kflign yang Ln mehpmt variable message mu (ms), aulomam: mm ummn system was), dose mm television (cow; dan g/abs! paslllnmng system reps). Sam laglhldang lupus mama me man penyebaran maklumaI|ra9lk\ehuhnaya kauana pemauna xammaya melamistssan rad\o.VMS darunua Derkmdmaian PLU5l’rafik Tvnmar. :6 sm nldywzxuzogsxnwhmw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [:21 Nimun demlkmn. nva yang mqin rmeknnkan man mahknmah ml iulah ungfiunfitawab mm resnonden kewa unmk mewuiudkan salu mam Pencegzhan xamauangan an Lebuhraya Uta:-a»Se\alan. ma s\s4em atau makanlsms Denoewahan kemmawan ml lelalvvun semi wuma, maka 5 mamman my uarpenaman sudah sampauan. masanyn bag: pmak vespundan kuuaa mwomhak samuli imam nlau mekansime mu kemna kehelkasnnnyn maapau amntmimma Adahh ma«,am¢.»ggang,.wan mm tespanden kmign snbagm pemegang kansesx max 32(ahIm mu umuk mememmi syam|- syaml knnsssl yang dlanflgerahkan oleh Keralasn Mamysva kepaaanya unluk so mmmluakan Derseknzmn Vebuhrayz yanu sewamamanam emkata seuemmnya. I331 Mankamah wm mambuatludtaal halved bahawa bsvdasarkan uausw dan bani: kunanangan, lelulama yang mamunkan kemalingan mam, yang saban nanmuaauman nanaku .1. wpiluaug jzuamn Lehuhraya UIari»Se|iVin as hnwnh 15 keMlaHan mhak mpamen kemaa, yang mempakan wmgan mama Damubungan darm ax Malays semarmlah mamaan gamharan hahawa nanmanan kamslanuan Vebuhraya masm belum meruadl iakus mama nmzk mspamen ksma. [an] Disihshksnlihafah yang Vehwlllmggw yang dlnyilikan aleh mankamarv gauax ac aanaan lelas meh responder: kzliga. make mahkamah vn memmuskan sudzh sampa. masanya nag: nasvflnden xeuwa dVuersa|ahD<an darn auazakxan Iamlm ananna berlaku kemalalvnan sepsm da\am kas GI hadapan 25 mahkamah um, vamcamanya dwsnbabkzn xegagaxan Pmak rewonasn ketvsa membukhkan kepadn mlhkamah WI! mam xa Izhh mawagmxan suamsnslzm dan mamam vencsgahan kzmzmngan dengan menggnrmkan segah kebflkanan flan Demalan canguih serfla ads. flan Ielah maaamnam «anau-mmawahnya sepam dvlelankan an hawah mekanslme Im Andamyfi so 5151»! dan mekamsme man wmud ssrnasa kmaman ml, mhak vespondsn mg: akzn sampaw m Vokaiw KM 32s 3 on man: sw nampak layav Inn bavada m langah hbumay: unmk mlngahh laynr rm znlma ,.m 12 Sn-1 pagl, yakm seulum kemalingan beflaku 35 14»: Rupondtn mug. um hohh mmgnuknn mm. mumhu umuk In mm:-nanuu umanmvn um yang mlabuh dill lorl yam uivlndu wsvondan Plflama naua vanl mauuan. Ianva mcnunlukkan nbarami sum kcpada mahkamall bihawa la Inlah mulakukan uuall man: flan wanana unulk muwuludkan slslnm dun muklnlsmu p-main... an am man. Illhkun-h mu mlmmulknn h-haw: nxpnmhn Imllna znmngaungpwau nplnuhnyl, .4 .. mg... Ilnngungllwlb ylng dlpllulkan npmny. Ak mm. :2 uhun lnlu olnh Kamjun M aym s-laku mm-am konsasl Lnhunraya Ulara~S-Iaun, dcnuan monfllunakzn man: hvakaran, summ flan hknolnll um: aua, mu .7 am DLn4yMwzKu20gBxnwiA1w ma saw n-nhnrwm be used a mm a. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm Va muNG wrm hubnknlknn Iumhur kwwunnml mm dlmllrkinyn, unluk mennuuban sum .1. r mu-an." mewuxumn slslnm dun mekamlme Dincliahan kamalanian lnhuhriyi mu blrnsualan. rnamuman mi in. memumskan adalah Inn: mulladi tum flan unonunlllwb Inmbav: s plngirih iyarlkat uinnndnn mg. unluk m. sun dlur Ihnuni mm wallb dallm lalilp yunnlnyn. Bag: M... pengumsnn |IrI\nun| mpmm... kniqx wlnh men]:-flkan dasar mu mum: Agenda uuml am». mup mnyuunlny smm. dnsu um dlgubnl flan dlnarntului -tan slshm flan mokanismc meauanan mmavanuan no lnbnhraya nu enw-uuum kolak, mun Ann: mullidl unuuunuiawah lnmhiia vlnnanm flan pungurusan unuuv xyankll rouwlldivl k!‘ I Imtnk menlnrlnmahkan mum .1... mlkanlima an. ..n.g.a budlyn km. ulurull wursa -ylrlku ...pm.u... mg. 15 my mnyn mum kn n y-nu dlsuhulkm en nmnmn an am umumm oluh nsvnndan man man dllaksinakan. barulan mahkamah um horchbolwashatlballawn nsrumd-n koflialldak um. dlvlrulallkan Ilka hulakn nag: nmxangan slpnm em... kn: . m [Emphese added] [271 Nlhough i\ has been reversed by me cememppeax, as laras lam aware, there is nu wrmen gmunas Vn me emer case \.E. Ahmad Rnshldl (supra). the coun cl Appeax amrmea the findings 0| me Ieemed JG (as 25 Hus Lordsmp men was). The learned JC men had stated. 1351 \n ma Drmsnx case. >1 5 nbvmus that me ms! ulawnnrrmd ml mmde mic annlher venlde whvch nan caused me sHeusd meem. mv amine! mow! vemcle nee mum min Ms molorcsrresulung Vnmsacmdam. lnsalw obmws an that were e no evndanoe m Vnspavabln damaga in was was an I17: hlglvwny evsdencmfl max mo p\am|M wmlstdnvwng ms mvharcar had eeueee mm :1, am unsung dxmagl m hxs urns Mal! causwng mums! e m. WW2 wm. is glaring ...a obvious m ma pmysnl me Vs ma axmenca Man Man Monk. 3 may huge one, an lhe highwny wma: was unavmdame lore mnmr1sll\keme W31 enema 15 Mm cannm hm M an me An as he was «me at 3 nansuisrame sveed on ma menway, mus causma damauslo ms car and Vruurmg mmsawarvu miwlla n _ very unu><e\y ma! me wmn block had been lmuwn (mm somewhat‘ aka‘ 0! (mm annlhev molar vemds causing enu.m.u.. an ms emu» Mg?“ 471 way we e obvious xx m. m. wmn em . mg uni (cum: all n.. mad, was aheady were .u men We met ;.»..nm was mm ms car He mum ml avoid .., mus eemamg 15 N nLa4yMwzKu20gBmwiAw.w we Sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm we nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum wrm ID 15 m ihia ilnlllsmg esiehawedarnageia ' carand aisa he sharp edges had pierced On In ihe Imdercalllfifie or his car causlw exteuswe iniuries In his Wlle. «he second mairiiiiwno was «oeeiner wiih riirr. aims hms M miiisien. ii. Ivldcnl iiianiis lnm block had burn on I'll highway lllhu maisriai Imn wh-rm.- urn piaihim was an his «am... sigh. nlwry ii in, In 5...... Pub hi. wm HI: Ixplcullnn wan . «. Ind .... ....:...a «re»... on «he Mammy. Any 1...... e«..im...s«.er. would m| be expesied by him when he wn d1Mng.BulM::aunn.hI In: re eimm a aieparaiia ldifiulh lock auiwhaii Inn was .«rMi.g,i.isi In can nlhu r..o«oris« oi. lhn hlahway is not carilul, albcn iiisn. cmlna a duty 01 can WIIIII vlylni an iris riipwway. s..« in «hip air Inm uses. is u-iiiiiuly Imforu uni. To pa Dollfforlbvd win .« III a will rrioriiaiiniad Ill fad Ind hsiha lnuvhabln Icclfllnt.‘ [Emphasis added] [23] sirriiiariy, in me present appeais, I had «ourid «ha« «he acciderii happened because ihe deeeaseds rrioiersyeie had run iriio «he yellow- orange irieial epieei oi. the highway arid ihe area was very dark. This was aisd my ahseryaiiori in some af ihoee eases apove where «he aoeideriia occurred a« r.igh« and «here were he sireei-iari.ps on Ihe highway. The neieridaiis suhrriiiied ihai «hey had Iakan an reaseariahie measures In ensure rhe saieiy .11 «he highway wher. «he pa|m| iean. had only passed by «he a sbene 20 minutes aria. to «he aaaiderii The sea iaurid «here was a lime «rarrie oi mare «har. 30 rriinuies beiweeri 11.15 — 11.45 pm as adrriined by SD1. They had been pairouirig in a big vehicie whereas me deceased and SD2 were irayelhrig oh rriaiorcycies, which is nor an suble- to-apple eerriparisori in ieriris av «heir ablllly id visualise The arearihe sireieh ol highway at me material lime The reieuarii rieiee are as iouows: 'Hak Tap. says ad: saiu soalan deripada Mamcamah «em:-re imranu var-z d. is. nu lvlllvyllzkan bahawa, mm ayai pariyaia mwngalzkzn hxhnwa hehiaianeari nu dikalakan baflaku ieriahgaar ea... aaiek d. aiae iah... K: .. klmll kaia irepada miari mu. Sci: i.....ii ii... kllnu iau Mhn ai ieronp ma... oiiiek lm bend: pads iriasa kem mar. dui sa...a ad. memllll exam. in. dali :41: :1! sin... ireiriapa Irarriiiiiiiis min. daiairi peraiip inn is N DLu4yMwZKu20gBhnwBAvkw use s..i.i ...hs.. M“ be used M mm Die s.i.h.iiu MW; dun-mm wa .ri..he pm... .5 an is an 35 sn1 Dsngzm xx... 9...... Semnsi say: mehlul kawasan .... ea..aa.aa..., Jawi Eandnr Esm ke Alnr Pongsu, |a\..a.. Kenn kal s\Iu lak aaa sebamnw max .4. aces man .aya nu Jam Minna? sn1 saya mm uaaa Ina -nun Wan. Er-1. mas: mam. saya pnslng sanaa. ea... Jam Z115. slmpal 1.. AIM Fonnsu jam man. kurang 2140 nl am... 1.... 23.5 .1... 2:44. I... k..... Illu ......... Hak Hak sn . Hak an 1 N». 2315 2:15 karma lalu kamu mm hk ad: avaani an alas 1a|a.. raya. m an: ava. Jam kanava kimu um. kcmalangan In dluhahkan uruannsarobl-k am luau...-m Sullblnyn sly: an lulunl puln. ....s.|....... .s..xp.4. .....s.1.4....:.1. mmnr sn . ......| . mm... mm.-.m.; may, knmu umvnl kn lohsi m 1-... haunt? Mm2.12n2 mlnnt-vwah ...a|an.. auras: mvnll In Jariknyi anlann ...asa kamu mullllal ma obluk mnuua knmu Hmpal umula k. Iukul Ian? Lnblll kw-nwu mlnll muse: so ...I..n. So, am... jingki mass new. kurmug 45 ........ hwlggn so ... same .1. 5.... Han kamu hm: ramai many an 5.... Ya.‘ mu so 1 Nak sni Hank 1..."... same. sue [29] The so; was relerring to an exhibit e. Borang Catalan PLUS Rnnda a! page 133 oi the Rekod Rayuan Mahkamah Sesyen. From the evidence above. .1 appeared mat sm relied on Normallon «mm others about me a.-.c..1e..t. How come he not have seen me me(s\ omeol when he arrived at me scene ane. me as am happened’? He was evasive in we answer and in aresaexammauen he Vale! agnaed that PLUS could have managed me maintenance afme highways better, such as by havmg more heaven. and thorough checks dunng me Palms [301 V! .e nine Vaw «ha. ma bumen oi preol m an acnor. tor neghgencs has wrlh me plamun: Ng Chul SI: v. Maxmon ac All[19a3] 1 ML! 110. The duty oflhe court .3 to dstemnns which version is mare mherenuy probable based on aval able awdance: Naorianli M: Zainnl Ah .. 1. on v 12...; 10 N u...<m..zxu2oae...u..... we 5.... ....a.. WW he .5... m mm we mW\ruU|y mm; dun-mm VII .n..Ne pm... 15 2o Grounds e1 Juagmem. u is noted lhal In me appea\s tu me High Cuurl, Muhammad Azrrrer bin Jarrrex was nul named as a Resperrdern [21 There were acluaHY Q sure men sepawlew agernsr PLUS and FROPEL sun Me. AB-ASSKJ-93-05/2021 was mea er me M.IgIsIr.IIn's own In Tarprrrg py Muhammad Azmer bin Jams! who made a damn agamst the estale of the deceased and PLUS and PRCPEL (or the damages and injlmes sullered. Meanwhile. m Suil No. AB-A53K..l-I45< 11/2020. me parems enrre aeeeased emugmme dawn agarrrsr PLUS and PROFEL as well as Muhammad Azmer bin .|ame\a(II1e Sessions Cam’! in Tarprng. An appnreaaon was made on 2 12.202110 wndud me hearmgs ollhese 2 suns Iagelher belore me so; arm me application ms aHowed [3] On 10 4.2023, cms Counhsard me appeals and reserves judgmsm. Then an 11 5.2023, me ceun dewered rudgrrrem wherein the apnea! by mus and PROFEL was msmssed with eescs am: he appeal by me P\aInUHs was allawed with no order as to cas|s. The Plarnms rraa appeared my on Ch sue ml me momrrly eontnbunnn by me SCJ which was stated as RMSDD an rrr me Dramuugmem and Grounds euuugrrrerrr 0! me ssssrerrs Ccurl whereas me SCJ pvonuunwd me amaunl as RM500 no m open com on 24.5.2022. FACT§ QF YHE cgg [4] Acccrdmg In me pxeearrrgs, PLUS‘ Is zrre eorrcessrorr rroluer Lfllhe mus Hrghway in aeeomarree with s.n of me Highway Aurrrerrry oi Ma\ays\a (\ncorporanon) Act new [Act 231]. PROFEL rrrarmarrrs and manages me PLUS Hrgrrway to ensure me safety o1 me expressway users. nus was me major pom atoomermen m the sums. 3 rr emmwzxuzosemsmw we saw n-nhnrwm as used m mm s. pr1mrr.HIy mm: dun-mm VI] anum Wm In 15 Lol Na: [1990] 2 NILJ 242. This Ccun lound liial lhe version at SD2, as supporled by lhs findings oi SP1, ms more inherenlly probable on a balance uf plobabllllies. The deceased was also conlnbuloriry negllgenl as was his finding oi lhs sea, and which i would nol dls|l.lrb (reler ls paragraphs 53 anwards of his SCJ‘s Grounds M Judgment). $02 could barely make uul ma uhiacl an lhe highway al lhal lime and he lrlsd lo auuid running IND lne nrsi malnrcycie but In no avail. There was no niaxa marks lrom lhe nrsl maldrcycle, which lend credence |u $D2's version lhai lhe deceased eouid ndl brake his machine in lime, This is mos: likely due In his lael lnal lhe area was very dark as mere was no lighling. [31] I also agreed wilh me nndinga ollhe SCJ that snz was nol to blame for the ascidanl as he had done his hasi ls avoid crashing inlo ins deceased ariarllie laller was thrown all his molorcysle. on this mini, l rarer Ia lhe case or Khairun Nind bin Daud a Aner v .iuprin Paul [2013] n MLJ 31, where iha isarnad .ic as ha lhan was sialad: ‘[321 i am in aaraerneril lnal lhars I5 aways a duly on mad users |u remain vigilanl al all limes as yunlic mad: am aways a venuevur davi3"v WV\‘C"9VB' iirna nl ma any car iamun, wmra am can nrvar bl smvtlsd la like in Easy and be DIV-guard aeaiuae ii is i. quit: sueiah ul mad ur a lime at me any vmere uami: volume as law.- [:2] coming back is his earlier iaaue oi whalher lIaDr|I|y can be impuled an PLUS and FROFEL, as can be seen from his cases cited ahaus, liis ssuns have been diuidsd un lhis issua Aparurum ins ganai-ai principles, the panicularlacis nfeach case would alsu delennina which way me mun decided on me mahar Has PLUS assumed rasponsihiiicy In pmiaci iis highway users7 oulolcunosily i had done a nicer research and gone inlo lhe PLUS wahaile. This is no sacral. it is in me open source. Paniculariy IN Dlulyhwzkuzflgaknwflilw -use s.n.i In-vlhnrwm as used M mm he unuii.ii-y MIME uua.i.i. wa nFiuNG wiui .5 m m as -5 Corporate Vshzes page, mey have proudly hsled s vames merein. 2 ol wmch are 'Takmg care or you" xnd ‘Do things better‘ It appears lhal PLUS aeknweagea and has bu‘ ’ we smumry dmy Mu ms Corporale values They shoum not gun he paymg up-semce hm musl be seen In be proactive m unaenaxing reiorms at Rs maxnlenance or me mgnweys to ensure mac mey really are (aking care on me users and s1nve Io du Ihmgs beuer remer men rmeremng me same ergumem each lime men :1 would be unreasuname lo expecl PLUS and PROPEL to arweys keep 5 Weak out «or fallen debns and lorsign objscls on me mgr-wsm [33] Counse\ tor «he Delendanls mes ms case of All v. areaforu MatIopnI|IIn Dlnrlcl Douncll lzacz] 1 WLR 151 where me UK cmm of Appeex stated: S:¢1mn1Z0 was cunclmsd WIIII me pmrnclmn at me Inga! nghlx M ma publwc at me and nbnmaccesx. rm sham eeveuy uvlaeed m acme ablwgalinn an me Aumemy m remove ahslmmians anfl mere was no Jusnflmuan oer wmvbsmg such an onugamn. Secflon tsn, which an make express nruvasven about the amyovan mmunmo ralmwe ubs1nn1|uns.wai a vubh: law dutywnn its own summary mama of arvfarcsrnant me sama was «rue no Slmnun mu. Alter lhe deeeaen wn Gmdsl V E311 sueeex CC‘PllI\lmInH1ad meme me kw Io creme gleam «gm hnnanly the nrmea e>1Ien|se« and m Secnnn :1 (1 9) and m respect or me and snow Th: dawn In nuwsanua was basad uruuer me prmcmle esoenusned m Sedlewv nemewa v 0‘Ca\la§VIan.» ‘An m>cuDie¢ M um '::unlInuas' m nu\s.InI:i H, mm knemug. nr pnilumnd kmwleoge at Rs ex\suenne_ he 1311: la take any reeeaneme meme In hung illu an em, mouan mm ample me In an so’. In in doing‘ me Claimant alw rem on a passaua 01 Lou: soon m eurrmae v came-aexe m Much he had noted mec emnr man var dawns anslny (ml or a mrem mzlmzwn undlrssalmv M Mammy mnnnuad In be flalnrvmnnd by me cnmman law pm-anes e1 negligence nrpublwc nuisance 11 sw DLu4yMwzKu20gBxrwiA1w «-we serm n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms mm-y mm: dun-mm VII nfluNG v-mm 1o nnmy the mm m Semewahrueniiekd m lhess circumstances would mauve exxenmng ns xalio m 2 very dmerenl tyne ul snuauan «mm mat wmuu the cm was mnsmenrw Tu wmvana a ralaflonirflv between nmghbaunrn; puma land ownavs mm the re\a|\LmshIp between a Highway Aulmmly and users ac ms 5 manway was nvltu compare an wnh mu Swgnmmmhy‘ . Hrqnmy Aulhnnky was no| an uwlfller nl me runway and am nel me In Mammy users 3 unmmun dmyahmre :3 mm Naflmann had was In Gamma. Yhe mmways Am mumen a uummex s1ammry was Qovemlnn the onunaum an al Nlghwav Aulhnrmas. To lemurs Huanway Aulhomres ‘In carry um regmav pmoamwunawlnrvfinmns afpunncvampsou av slldesulpflonnn sat lhatmey were «spam «mm ol7sm.I¢l\oniwuu\d have subnarmll ammm Impllcaflons fov Loal Aunmnuu nu ow-mm ml hava the ma}: smcanynng mun casts mam nnalyml vmamamg Ihe melil: cl mosmg such nn amsgaunn ' .5 [:41 seam «so oi the Highway Acts 1930 prov\des' '*DmyIn Mmmm nmw mil mc. imm hlqhully. W n... uu.m.,» ansu m . higlvwnyimm m.m..x.m cl snawarimm [he 20 faflmg down 9; am. an mg «:12 nfihe »..,,..w.,_ nrfmm arvy mnar cause‘ me hwghway aumamy mu remove me mmm. <2» ' [351 ms Conn was urged by me Defendants m its submisston man ms 25 Calms dud not have H78 100‘: for carrymg out a msts benefit anab/313 for decwdmg me rnents o1\mP\)sing such an obhgalinrv 'PenuhzkAman dalam has an alas msnuruukkan bahawa memakkan beban yang hnggl sapam majalankan mndlnn yang mm lump, u... binyak xu cadallgin Van! yang holeh mm pm. mg: mbandnng dengan 'subsmnml Iwnnrmc ilnplwlzllimls“ dahm ken wm seven! kevelluan menambah kadar mu umuk membe\nnj.n><an lehm dnlum pengawasan. swam mnyavaxan aavam kes lersebm The Courts ma um havs ms tool: for as canymn ou| a ousls bervem anawsli In! dscldma me merits or wmwunu sua- an oblwgabon - oxen nu, sehehlm mcbukkan beban yana uermu nmgl am Delendslr amnaan, Mnhksmah yang muhi W peflu mengamhil Hm hnhawa 'The ca-ms 2; sm nldywzxuzogsxnwhmw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm an 2; m ma rio| have the tows «oi carrying cm a 00515 benefit anaiy:-s for deciding ine mam; nhmpcsmg such an nbhglliun“ [35] IS noted ineiine UK Hignweys Aci is even oeiier as ii speii out ins dulies and crruperalion between highway euinmiiies and incei eeunciis. PLUS would do weii to amend ins law to pmvide far one same PLUS naving been in me industry for so iong smeiy has me expenise and such cost benefit analysis iocls needed In do so. It eannoi lorever nide be Ind such excuses as were submilled in inns appeal and many Nher cases ueiare (ms. [37] in so far as me Maieysien law is concerned, I reierio me case at Dam: Eiiaawtin Siligh v FF [1 M71 4 CL! E45015 Federal Cmm held. '[1a]Yhs com uYAPDaal in :1 . geneni rull, mum by us awn daciiiuna rn. three cxiiepliuns enunciated in Vuung V Erinul Aempiarie Ga Lld me iii a decision oi in. Own uuppesi given per inuinem need rio| us Iuiiawed, (in when (seed wilh s eomiici in maven D7115 awn previous i1ecisions,me coiin emweei may choose which decision |a ieiiominespeciive oi-ins aaiesoiinose deusmns: and iiiii Ihs Conn 57 Apneai OWN! not to ioiiow Vh awn Dvlvlws docismis it such deuswns am, expvessly ur by riacssslly inipiimiion Dvsflulsd hyllva Fndaral Cowl, at illhey mum! slam! wiin a decisinri Mme recieai coin in iespea oi emevliari (ii above, the words ‘per incmiam' are to be irilelvreled rialmv/IY io mean a - . aecislnn men in Wmranoe or ioniiemiiness oi some Inwnsisleril sKa|ull‘lVY mvision or oisome aiiinonry binding in ineomin ooricsmed .' |1h]CourI.Hn|M u II no GM mu Courl cl APPDII cannot my on in. nu inciiiimi Ixclpliun moi H by in. Cuiul nl Apytll ior iuell, hul mly chuau mmn Mn cnnfllcdng d-clslnnl innxpcinivu :21 in. am. of (hull confllnlny iiucixlnns. (Emphasis added] pa] Having considered an ine issues, recoms and submissions‘ I was at me view main habilily can be iinpuied un PLUS and PROPEL iinniiy and merelcirz decided inei ine sopeai on liahilrly shuuld not be eiiuwea 2. n ummiizxiizogemuin. we s.n.i nnvihnrwm be flied M mm he nrwirufily sun. m.n.n VI] .nunc WM! (ii) on me isaul of quantum [39] In the case of Laksamana Realty Sdn and [znosj A cL.l an, lhs oourl (have referred to Tan Kuan vau v sunindrimani Angasamy 11 nus} s 1 CL] 429 where the Federal Cuurl held' ‘me Dunanle mal could gulda mls mun m dstsmllrllrlg vmslhev n SHDLM lrnaflere wlm me quamum on damadss Vi aysral clear Wlval VS also dear u lhzl much dupands on me cucdmsunm avsaan case‘ VII vamtular Ihe amaum on me award In 1 pudculnr cm Ihnnlon It ls m [In appnl calm no In camidsrwnalnsrlnlhe ligm culls clrcumslannes omual csssmm ls an enanenus esllmate nftbe amounl Mme almost ln that nlllltr mm m: In nmlsilon on In: uaflvfthl Juflw to can: u mm. nlmm mxlnnnlx ur u. had .dm.u.d for purpnlgl nl ....s.m.m same In: an: mznlldluduns. lune mun VS sallslled or wnvlnced lhzllhe Judge has acted IS wan wmna Dnrwlnles or law men ll lsluslmed In revsmlrlfl. mused n ls Mi duly lo reverse ma nndlng almslnal Judge.‘ [Empnaus added] [40] The Cmm alscl referred in the Enghsh case uf nun". y v Juycu (197313 AER 475 where il was held’ 2n ‘[1 9} me Dnnclple «or assesslrlw damages For vlmlms av neglsqanoe Is basefl on me ldllowlnd nun the loss of ma mum II ms nuds ruulllnl: lrom cm nnullulnne. And um um amaunl of um mu 1 uc-lulu-d by miulncn ID on wow and rmmal. coll nrf lupplyinq mm md. nu nlm M 25 flamlg n -1., mm in mmplnlmllhn mum forms loss. Thai loss is the smalls. 01: md Ihllwuuld um hue ulster! but hr lhn Inn. The cnmmllalmrl onhal loss ln monela-y lam roran award ol damages ls dnrle ny laiemnoelo me Dlovsl and reasonable wsvdlsupmymg lhal used an [Emphasis added] [41] Compensallon must be lau. reasonable and adequale but not exoesslvs: Vang salblah & Ana: v Jamll Bln Hmm (191111 MLJ 192, lnas Falqlh Muhd Helmi (: child mug lhmugll nar mlm and nm as Vrlnnd: Mulld Hnlmi Ahdul Axix V Kmjaan Mahysla 1. Or; [2016] 2 15 N DLn4vMwZKu20gBmwIAl7kw ma Snllnl lhlflhll WW be used m mm a. nllnlrullly mm; dun-mm VII .;l.m pm m 2n 2: Cu 535, Wong Ll Fan w rarn (an inram) V Haidamn Erna Eomen A Auor [1994] 2 MLJ 497 The com nas taken mu: oansiuarauon :7! new names‘ submrssrons and perused me gvcunds ofludgmem anna SCJ and concluded (ha! me Kola] amount awarded to ocrnpensme me Fkuntifis for the V055 aHhs\rson‘sIl1s(momhIy dependency claim) waslarr, reasonabka and adequate In maonsurnaxanoea. suune amaunl or RM3oa.ou that was amended ca RM5DD.UU was necessary m view more aiacrapancy In «no pronuuncemenl and ma Judgmem or ma Sessrcns Court. CONCLUSION [42] Premrsed upon me almve aunsmamruns, me Court found that appeflate mlerventiun was not jusmad m terms ml Inability and aoaarorngxy dismissed me apnea! with costs The com alluwed ma app9a\ by me P\a‘mMfs with no urdsr as to costs and varied me quanmrn awarded for ma amount 01 moncnly Donmbuuon Ia RM50D.00 as was pronounced by me SCJ rn open com. Order accordingly. Dam: 2n Dacambov 2023 %/ NOOR RIJWENA BINTI MD NURDIN Ju ' al cornrniss' ner High Court of Malaya, 1 rn DLn4yMwzKu20gBmwIAw.w -ma snrm na-nhnv M“ as used m mm na ann.u-y mm; dun-mm VII mum Wm For the Aggnllant: Mr. Amman S|ngarava|u Messrs. Ami A sulan, Inch 5 Fgr lhg Rlsgondanl: Ms. Aylcswnry 70! Messrs. Amuld Andrew 5. Cu.. Ipoh 27 w uLa4vMwzKu20gBmqiAvkw -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm ID 2n 1; [5] his mulmcycla hearing registratidn number PAS saav and his mend, Muhammad Azmer hin Jamel (502), was en metdrcyeie with the regIs1ra(ion number KQ aA72 dh me PLUS highway Both onhein were part at a convoy pi 7 inaiprcyciisve heading irpm Kueie Ketii, Kedah towards Behhhg. Selangor. It is a well-known iectthetpere oithe highway are not weti-In ernoi iii ataH due |o the exlensive length at the infraslrulure which enetchee in the west oaasmfthe Fenineuiarimm me nnrmem eiete ei Fsriis an the way dawn to the eduihemmeet eiaie di Jahor. on 27.4.2013 appieximateiy at tt 45 pm, the deeeaeed was riding [5] upen reaching KM177.8, accurdmg tn the eyewitness la the tnudent. SD2 who was ridi g behind the deceiasetfs momrcycie. it siruck a yeildwrehge metei object lying on the emergency lane. The deceased was hung ohm the right tiesh Ierre. In the agony oi the moment. snz cduid not avmd the iaiieh mowrcycle end hit it where the impact pi rhe coiiision eeueed both machines io skid and were diegged io (he emergency lane where hath evenlually stopped. sm was hung onto me ieh (slow) lane. SD2 did hei pass am when he vein and managed in use the iighi on his handphene id see where the dsmaassd had iaiien ae me area was very dark, geiap gema- he said The depeased was stiH breathing at mat time. With the heip of the others in the convoy, they moved him once the emergency Iehe but the deceased passed eway not Idng eiter that. Then an ambuianee came and malt SD2 lo the nearest hospnei as he sustained a haeiured ieh erm. he lodged e police report on 3o.4.2ms (P4) [7] The t1eoeased‘sfaiher|SF.'i)was invprmed apedt the accident that night and Vodged a peiice repen aimdst a week iaier en 2 5 zota (P5) as he had lo attend |o the deoeeseds hmerai and other reiaied mahere According to him, he and his wile med the cteim as they were dependants . IN eidmwzxdzoeemenmr. -we Sunni I-vihnrwm be used a yaw ea mnr.u-y MVMS dun-mhl wa nFiuNG Wm! 15 2e at the deceased whereby he oan|ribt.t|ed te his parents’ murilhiy upkeep in the arnount at RM700 no. the deceased was working as an operator at lrtokcm sdn and, since 7 6.2011 and was earning a monthly eaiary at about RMt,5oo no tnciudirtg aiiawences. This was centiimed by a representative of his empioyer (SP2) in their tetter and payslips were exniiiited as P9,F10|a|artt1|bj. [5] accident approximately at 12.40 am, He testified that he saw the yellow- arenge me|ai otaiect on the emergency iane ireier to we and 0)) and both mommycles had been moved there too. According to SP1. the cause of death was determined to he “Folyliauma seddndery te Road Trattic Accidenr iretertd poet-inerteni report F12). The nietat nbtect was sent |o the chemistry Department at Mataysia and it was confinrieti that the rim of the item tyre at the dedeaseds maictcycle was dented. A sampie at SP1 was the investigation omcer who arrived at the scene at the yeliow paint taund en the nietareycte was taken and luund in match the Paint otttie wiiow metal obiect. The chemist report (P5) curifirrned that the tyre nl deceased's mulomyzzle must iikeiy hit the yettow metai object in the position as Der photograph Paiviiri. [9] on 11.1.2022, SD2 had settied his claims with PLUS without admission at iiabiiny and recorded a Cansenwudgmant. His claim against PLUS and PROFEL was suhssquentiy withdrawn. EwtLgAnmt AND FINDINGS gr THE courrr [10] it was contended by the Plairiiifls that lhe deceased died due tn the accident wherein he did not realise the imminent danger en the road surface as there was he tighting or warning sign nor any satety cones s iN etetyinzxdzceetneem». ‘Nair e.n.i nnvihnrwiii be flied M mm has nflninniily sun. dun-vinrii VI] nFit.ING Wflxi 15 re placed ni the siie Tnereicre, na eeuid not have taken any action to avoid the nreiei object and was HDI coninbuidriiy negiigenz in max regard. The perrieuiare 01 PLUS and F'ROPEL's breach e1 sianuiory duiy ei care and common iaw duiy of care were oonlairied in pamgiaph 7 eiihe siaierneni or claim. The deceased was a iawfui user oi the highway. in was aiiegea mar nus and PROFEL had not provided a mad surface that was iree irern any hazards er nuisanee as a resuii enhe existence encreign debris or that iney had umined In rerncye me rcreign merai ehieei en me sireicn so mad where one incident dceurred, resuiiing in the deceased being krued airnoei immediately. [11] II was submitted during the hearing by me Ds6endants'oaunssItl1al “we are her mspuung his decision or SCJ in ihei regard hul the liabimy av 30% 0! me Appeiianr where ii sheum be me reverse Le. at only 20% SD2's eyieenee should he tested againsl me siiem evidence. The Delendants argusd me: are deeeased and 502 were riding en ine emergency lane as were were dniy an emergency lane and enoirier lane there and all me scratch marks were only on the emergency lane. Aiineugh the highway was dark and wilh the headiignis 0! me iirsi moiorcyciei and had he been riding at a seie speed within me limits at his iigni, «he decsased some have seen me rrreial objeci en me read. There was no evmenee howlnng ine object had been on me highway. The pairei persennei eeuiu rml be heid name as they had passed by inai area 20 rninuies prior to the aeeidern and mid me Cuurl inauhe mad was clear [12] The wiinesses gave evidence that me mere: obiecl wuld have eerneneii ircrn a iorry or oenlairierand PLUS eouie nor be expecied in be ieiiewing each vehicle and see I’ ll dmpped something II was run a slum IN DLa4yMwzKu20gBkrwiA1w -nae s.n.i In-vihnrwm re used m yaw ms nflninaflly sum. dun-mm wa ariurm WM! 15 Hablhly lssue and s.5 ol me Federal Roads (Prrvale Managernenl) Acl 1954 [Act 37:3 scales. ‘Dmym malmam mud. ondoe orlany 5 Any Derson who ls amnonsee la dernarro, collect and relaln tolls under an ordarmada undaraqclinn 2 srr.ll m maln In gum mpliv and mrdnsun and in acmninnce wllh sound erlglneennn ore Ihe mad, endoe or levy, rn respecl dlwnlon ma ordarla made.- [13] Thereldre, ll was submrlled that me deceased nad oonlrlbuled subslarmallyla lrre accidentand me SCJ had irnoosed a niglrer duly upon the Delenoanls. The slandaro or care IS only wnal ls reasonably loreaeeable as dlslrnmlon must be made between a permanent danger due lo warn of reoarr, and a llanslenl danger due lo elemenls wrrlcn me laller ls Iempcrary in nalure. Moreover, lna corms do nol nave me means to assess wnal hlghway aulnorlly sneold do slnce n lnvalves mass. The case of Burllsldl A Anor v Ennrsun a. Aner [19:31 1 WLR 1940 was clted wnere lna oansrderalions are as fu||nws' The Plalnllll rnusl snow that me road was lrr sucn a condltlon as lo [)5 dangerous lor lralfic. ln seelng wnelner ll is dangerous lnreseeamllly rs easenllal; H. The Flalnllu muel prove manna danger was due lo llre lallure lo malnlaln w11lahlncludsslaHl4re lo reparrlne nlgnway. In this regard dislrnclron is lo oe dravm between a oennananl danger due lo wanl or repair, and a Iranslenl danger due tn elarnerns wnen mere am polnules or ruls in a classlrled road which have eonllnued tor a long lime unrepalred ll may be inlerred lnsl lnere nae been a (allure la malnlaln When lnere rs lnanslenl dangerdue lo elenrenla, be ll snow, me or heavy raln N Dlnlyhwzkuzflgaknwnmw we s.n.r In-vlhnrwm re used a mm he oflmnnllly sun. dun-mm Va .nane wnxl an ihe mastenoe at the danger idr a sham «me is no evidence at iariure in rnarniain; and in. If there is vaiidre id rrrainiarn, whether «he highway authumy showed the: highway look all reasonable cave to maintain lhe [14] in regard to me issue aiqusnuurn. the neiendams submifled manhe claim idr RM5uu.uc per rndnth idr dependency was wmng because she shodid have deducied some anrddm idr the expenses oi the deceased-s smirhgs as they were no: dependants‘ dniy parenis were depehdanis VI ihis ease and they submilled that RM3K)U.00 weuid he an appropnaie amuunl Mdredver, the dscmsefs lamer earned RM1,BDO an. hence they did not need «he exlra money from mm for ihe srhimgs [15] The Piainiiws in new subrnmed that SP1 was an indeaendeni witness and ii could not be said «her his evidence was hearsay. in was peisnuy clear imrn sn2'e evidence ihai ihe rnsiai object was on ihe sidw lens and his evidehde was ndi sdcceesiuiiy ehaiienged. There was no Evidence ihauhe deceased and SD2 were haveiiing fastuv exceeded the speed hmil of 110 km/h on «he highway. suz aisa «did me com me: i\ was very dark DUI there and he could barely make am the yeHow—crangs rneeel ubjevl in «he dark more night, [is] The caun was urged that ii was «he ddiy ol PLUS and PROPEL io rnaihiein me highway tree imrn delzns In ensure salsty oi ihe users. The last mund was made abou| 20 mrnmes before ms aeeideni. T is was argued I0 he insdmaieni heeadse sm siaied that while he was patrolling ihe area, there was his debris an the read sm adrnmed the muniidrihg w DLn4yMwZKL120gBhrwiAfiw -we s.n.i nnvihnrwm as dr... m mm s. nflmnnflly Mimi dun-mm wa nfluNG wnxi 1h 15 20 In was nmylhmugh me naked eye to see whemerlhere was any onexrucuon on lhe highway at me mnzervex «me and he did not go down |o check wnn e mrcnugnn. Thsv vemda neealigrn showed viemimy of up to 50 meters. SD1 agreed Vn crvss-examlnaflnn men monudnng ehdurd have been more frsquem |a ensure we wgnway was safe. [11] on me quencum issue, VI was me P|aInIn1s' cumenlmn that the dependency amuunl snemd be RMSDO on as me deceased earned RM150D no includmg overlime and anomndee Iese 1/3 var Viving expenses onne deceased. There was no dweu ewdence met me money went to the slbhngs because it was enlyme oral ewdence gwen by SP3 and presumplmn cennex sImp\y be made without oanorele svmence. (i) Lmhulnty [13] \n me case or Fruiek Lnhuh Raya Ulam-Sulalan Sdn Bhd v Kim sang Enmpdse (Kldah) sdn and [ma] 5 MLJ 350, me coun oi Apnea! sated- “[671 Nequuenee ls e km and wee mms must be pnmd la suppon me uannentscxaxrn (5) mm xn. delendam owes me dannam uuennm a mm 0! we an mm |ha dalandlm e n. match at me: duly av cam: and (e) that me enennenn plenum uflels dlmags as s rssull cflhat mean oi only and (hamamaae Vs mum remule [63] Aoomdmn to Ndevsmv Bin Elym v a.nn\-when weuerwdm cu men) 11 Exch 751. a van Nagflaanca ws me ormsslon to do edmeuunu mm a mawnzbve man, Qulded unun mm cane-aeveuane wmm ordmarfly resume we conduct at nmnen emm, wdmd dd, ur dmng icmelmng Much a pvudam and rensmame man weukl nut dd - n DLa4yMwzKu20gBknwiA1w Nuns sew n-nhnrwm be used e mm n. nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm wa nnum wrm 15 25 [5F]Tha nendaid eleenduci re dsianniris negligence Ii lhatoflhe reasonable Mlll n l! in nbleltllve iesi “ [19] lindings of the Ivlal courl unless ii is culwlnced that lnere have been subslannal rnisdireclicn M lame and law which nieriled aapellale inlervenlion. The subellale court will determine whelner pr ncl lhe lrial oourl arrived el ils decision or finding correctly on lne oasis oi the relevanl law and/nr me established evldence.u will examine the process 01 It is lriie law lnai an appeiiaie coon would be slew to disruru me evaluation cflhe evidence pylne liiai courl. A decision arnved all by a lrial coun wilnoul or insumcienl iudicial apnrecialion oi the evidence may be sel aside on appeal. This is eensislenlwiin lne established ‘plainly wrong‘ lesl: can vook chin & are v Lee in chin L ore [zonal cu 3419 (PC). Hence, regardless el any number el grounds raised in me Memorandum omppeal, lne duly oi ine appeilale cmlrt in a civil appeal isle deiennine wneinerlne appellanl has pmved nis ease an a paiance er pruuapiliiies. [20] ll is also lrlle lnal ine lrier ovlecl would have had me beriem and advantage oi seeing and hearing lhe wilnesses and me ovnonunity le assess lheir denieanour: Rnsidin Bin Parloio v Fro orick Kial [1919] 2 MLJ 214. He orshewould have had hisl-hand oppenunllylo evaluale and appraise lhe evlaence oi liie wiinesses. [21] The SCJ had wrillen a lung and quire numpnahenslva grmmds uf iudgrnenl Having considered me evidence and «he SCJ's Grounds oi Judgrneni against me submissions by me names, I agreed wiln the findingsoflacls made by lhe sessions oourl. The evidence was very clear lrial lhe deceased died alniosl iniinedialely siler his niolercycie ran into me yellow-orange nielal abject en lne road Nmougn snz was lhe dsosasetfs hand, i lound mat he was a eenipelenlwilness and mere was X0 in eieiyiriizxuzoeeinpuin. -use Smnl in-vlhnrwlll be used M mm as uflnlnallly MVMS m.i.ir wa nFluNG Wflxl

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-83-3200-04/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LI YUANFENG

Halangan ke atas penjawat awam-Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan-enggan melakukan ujian nafas merupakan satu halangan kerana menyebabkan pegawai polis tidak dapat mengambil ujian nafas di tempat kejadian.

20/12/2023

Puan Wong Chai Sia

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8ceb5588-699f-4088-ab63-4a0b5e591770&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI KUALA LUMPUR (BIDANG KUASA JENAYAH) DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (DALAM KES JENAYAH NO: WA-83-3200-04/2022) ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA DAN LI YUANFENG ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN A. LATAR BELAKANG [1] Tertuduh (OKT) telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. Pertuduhan adalah seperti berikut:- PERTUDUHAN PERTUDUHAN BAHAWA KAMU PADA 02/04/2022 JAM LEBIH KURANG 0110 PAGI, BERTEMPAT DI TEPI JALAN TUN RAZAK, HADAPAN HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR DI DALAM DAERAH 20/12/2023 16:16:54 WA-83-3200-04/2022 Kand. 32 S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 DANG WANGI, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, DI DAPATI TELAH MENGHALANG PENJAWAT AWAM IAITU KPL 151642 SHAZRUL IZHAM B ABDUL MALEK, DARI MENJALANKAN TUGAS UJIAN KANDUNGAN ALKOHOL TERHADAP KAMU. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 186 KANUN KESEKSAAN. HUKUMAN: JIKA DISABITKAN DENGAN KESALAHAN HENDAKLAH DIHUKUM DENGAN PENJARA SELAMA TEMPOH YANG BOLEH SAMPAI DUA TAHUN, ATAU DENGAN DENDA YANG BOLEH SAMPAI SEPULUH RIBU RINGGIT, ATAU DENGAN KEDUA-DUANYA. [2] Setelah pertuduhan dibacakan dalam bahasa mandarin iaitu bahasa yang difahami oleh OKT, OKT tidak mengaku bersalah terhadap ke atas pertuduhan dan mohon perbicaraan. [3] Pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil seramai 4 orang saksi untuk menyokong kes pendakwaan iaitu: a) SP 1- Kpl Shazrul Izham Bin Abdul Malek b) SP 2- Insp Hazliza Binti Mat Ruzi c) SP 3- L/Kpl Azraei Bin Hassan d) SP4- Insp Pat Wil Liam [4] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah telah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie dan OKT dipanggil untuk membela diri. Pada akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah mendapati pihak pembelaan masih gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah atau pembelaan bermerit dan S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 telah mendapati OKT bersalah dan mensabitkan OKT ke atas pertuduhan. Mahkamah telah menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM4000 sekiranya gagal bayar 2 bulan penjara dan kos pendakwaan sebanyak RM1000 sekiranya gagal bayar 1 bulan penjara. B. KES PERINGKAT PENDAKWAAN [5] Pada 8/9/2018 jam lebih kurang 3.00 pagi, SP1 bersama dengan SP2 dan SP3 sedang bertugas untuk sekatan jalan raya (SJR) di Jalan Tun Razak. Semasa SP1 sedang bertugas di SJR telah menahan sebuah kereta Honda CRV yang dipandu oleh OKT. SP1 mendapati OKT berbau alkohol dan muka berwarna merah. [6] SP1 telah mengarah OKT untuk membuat ujian nafas. SP1 dan telah memberikan arahan dalam bahasa Inggeris yang mudah. SP1 telah bercakap “ I want to test alchohol, I want you to blow this machine’. SP1 menggunakan bahasa Inggeris yang mudah kerana SP1 mendapati OKT tidak faham bahasa Melayu. SP1 juga telah menunjukkan cara meniup kepada OKT dan OKT enggan melakukan. [7] Setelah arahan diberikan, OKT enggan mengikuti arahan diberikan oleh SP1. SP1 telah memaklumkan kepada SP2 yang merupakan pegawai SJR. SP2 mengarahkan SP1 untuk membawa OKT ke balai polis. SP1 menyatakan arahan yang sama diterangkan dalam bahasa Mandarin oleh SP3 di tempat kejadian. OKT faham namun enggan melakukan dan enggan mengikut ke balai. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] OKT ditahan kerana menghalang SP1 untuk melaksanakan tugas awamnya kerana OKT enggan meniup alat ujian nafas SD2+. C. PERUNTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG [9] Menurut seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (supra), pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan satu kes prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan. Begitu juga di dalam seksyen 173 (h) (i) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Peruntukan tersebut menyatakan bahawa apabila kes pendakwaan berakhir, mahkamah akan menimbangkan samada pendakwaan telah membuat suatu prima facie kes terhadap tertuduh. [10] Pengujian kes secara prima facie telah diputuskan di dalam kes yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan iaitu Balachandran v PP [2005] 2 MLJ 302 di mana mahkamah memutuskan bahawa: “The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie. As the accused can be convicted on the prima facie evidence it must have reached a standard which is capable of supporting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt” “A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side. The result is that the force of the evidence adduced must be such that, if unrebutted, it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts exist or did happen. On the other hand if a prima facie case has not been made out it means that there is no material evidence which can be believed in the sense as described earlier. 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. As the trial is without a jury it is only with such a positive evaluation can the court make a determination for the purpose of s. 180(2) and (3)...” [11] Begitu juga di dalam kes Looi Kow Chai & Anor v PP (2003) 1 CLJ 734 d dinyatakan sebagai; “A jugde sitting alone must subject the prosecution evidence to the maximum evaluation and ask himself the question “ if I decide to call upon the accused to enter his defence and he elects to remain silent, am I prepared to convict him on the totality of the evidence contain in the prosecution case?”If the answer was in the negative, then no prima facie case had been made out and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal…” S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 D. PEMBUKTIAN PERTUDUHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 186 KANUN KESEKSAAN [12] Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan: “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand ringgit or with both.” [13] Fakta yang perlu dibuktikan bagi memenuhi elemen pertuduhan seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan adalah: a.OKT menghalang penjawat awam yang sedang menjalankan tugasnya; b. OKT melakukan halangan dengan sukarela. [14] Merujuk kepada kes Tan Teck Yam v PP [1968] 1 MLJ 57 seperti mana dirujuk oleh pihak pendakwaan di mana prinsip yang diguna pakai oleh Mahkamah adalah bahawa intipati kesalahan ini adalah pada kelakuan menghalang adalah menyebabkan penjawat awam sukar melakukan tugasnya. [15] Pihak pendakwaan berhujah bahawa semua elemen dalam pertuduhan telah dibuktikan berdasarkan keterangan berikut: i. SP1 telah mengarahkan OKT untuk memberikan kerjasama untuk meniup alat SD2+ tersebut dan OKT enggan melakukanya. ii. Arahan kepada OKT telah diberikan oleh SP1 dengan menggunakan bahasa Inggeris yang mudah difahami. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 iii. SP1 juga telah menunjukkan cara-cara untuk meniup alat SD2+ tersebut. iv. Semakan kewarganegaraan OKT juga telah dilakukan di mana passport OKT disemak dan apabila mendapati OKT adalah warganegara China, cubaan untuk berkomunikasi dalam bahasa Mandarin telah dilakukan kerana SP3 boleh berbahasa Mandarin. v. SP3 telah menerangkan arahan SP1 dalam bahasa Mandarin, OKT telah memahaminya namun masih enggan mengikuti arahan tersebut. vi. SP1 menyatakan oleh kerana OKT enggan menjalani ujian kandungan alkohol SD2+, SP2 telah memberikan arahan supaya OKT dibawa ke balai polis trafik untuk menjalani ujian kandungan alkohol di sana. vii. Keterangan SP1 disokong oleh SP2 dan SP3. [16] Pihak pendakwaan berhujah bahawa SP1 sedang menjalankan tugas sekatan jalan raya untuk operasi motosikal. Namun, kereta yang dipandu oleh OKT telah melanggar kon SJR menyebabkan SP1 membuat pemeriksaan terhadap OKT. Ketika itu, SP1 mengesyaki OKT di bawah pengaruh OKT dan telah meminta OKT untuk melakukan ujian nafas. Walaupun OKT faham dengan permintaan polis, OKT enggan melakukan ujian nafas tersebut. [17] Hal ini menyebabkan ujian nafas tidak dapat dilakukan oleh SP1 dan OKT perlu dibawa ke balai polis. [18] Berdasarkan keterangan saksi pendakwaan, elemen pertama telah dipenuhi di mana SP1, SP2 dan SP3 sedang bertugas S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 membuat SJR di Jalan Tun Razak. OKT telah diminta membuat ujian nafas dan OKT enggan mengikuti arahan tersebut. Elemen kedua terbukti apabila pelbagai cara digunakan oleh saksi pendakwaan dalam menerangkan arahan kepada OKT, OKT masih enggan mengikuti arahan diberikan. Tindakan OKT adalah dalam pengetahuan OKT secara sukarela enggan mengikuti arahan diberikan. [19] Peguam bela berhujah bahawa tiada kes prima facie terhadap pertuduhan ke atas OKT atas alasan berikut: a) OKT merupakan warganegara China yang tidak memahami bahasa Malaysia. b) Pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah cacat di mana seksyen kesalahan 182 dan fakta kes adalah tidak selaras dengan dengan seksyen 182 Kanun Keseksaan. c) OKT adalah keadaan tidak sedar dan tiada elemen mens rea dapat dibuktikan. d) Tiada elemen menghalang kekerasan secara jenayah E. ISU [20] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan, mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap OKT. [21] Pihak pembelaan berhujah pertuduhan adalah cacat kerana OKT dituduh dibawah seksyen 182 Kanun Keseksaan yang membawa elemen berbeza. Pihak pembelaan menyatakan keterangan saksi pendakwaan di Mahkamah membawa kepada satu pertuduhan S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 yang berlainan iaitu di bawah Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. Maka, pertuduhan di bawah seksyen yang salah tersebut telahpun diterjemahkan dalam bahasa Mandarin kepada OKT. [22] Mengikut nota prosiding Mahkamah bertarikh 8 April 2022 apabila pertuduhan pertama kali dibacakan, pertuduhan telah dipinda kepada seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan dan OKT ketika itu telah diterangkan pertuduhan bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. Ketika itu, OKT diwakili oleh peguam yang berlainan. Mahkamah mendapati tiada kecacatan terhadap seksyen kesalahan di mana pertuduhan telah dipinda sebelum OKT diterangkan pertuduhan. [23] Isu berkenaan dengan OKT tidak memahami bahasa Malaysia tidak menjadikan perbicaraan tidak adil atau OKT tidak faham prosiding Mahkamah. Mahkamah telah menyediakan jurubahasa yang fasih bahasa mandarin sepanjang kes dan perbicaraan untuk menerangkan keseluruhan prosiding kepada OKT. Mahkamah telah memastikan seksyen pertuduhan adalah betul sebelum pertuduhan dibacakan kepada OKT. Peguam bela terpelajar telah terkhilaf dalam isu pertuduhan seksyen yang salah memandangkan pindaan telah dibuat pada tarikh pertama OKT telah dipertuduhkan di Mahkamah. Maka, tiada alasan bahawa OKT telah dibacakan seksyen yang salah dan perbicaraan adalah tersilap arah daripada pertuduhan. [24] Keduanya, pihak pembelaan menyatakan kegagalan pihak pendakwaan menyatakan ‘voluntarily’ atau dengan sukarela dalam pertuduhan menyebabkan pertuduhan adalah cacat dan tidak S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 boleh dibaiki menggunakan seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [25] Pihak pendakwaan telah memohon pindaan pertuduhan dalam hujahan. Pihak pendakwaan berhujah bahawa pertuduhan asal juga mendedahkan notis yang mencukupi mengenai kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT. Pertuduhan pindaan yang dicadangkan adalah seperti berikut: ‘BAHAWA KAMU ADA 02/04/2022 JAM LEBIH KURANG JAM 0110 PAGI BERTEMPAT DI TEPI JALAN TUN RAZAK, HADAPAN HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR DI DALAM DAERAH DANG WANGI, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, DIDAPATI TELAH DENGAN SUKARELA MENGHALANG PENJAWAT AWAM IAITU KPL 151642 SHAZRUL IZHAM B ABDUL MALEK, DARI MENJALANKAN TUGAS FUNGSI AWAMNYA IAITU MELAKUKAN UJIAN KANDUNGAN ALKOHOL TERHADAP KAMU. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 186 KANUN KESEKSAAN. [26] Mahkamah membenarkan pindaan yang dipohon oleh TPR mengikut peruntukan seksyen 158 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Seksyen 158 Kanun Tatacara memperuntukkan seperti berikut: 158. (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [27] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada seksyen 156 Kanun Keseksaan dan contoh ilustrasi di mana ketinggalan perkataan dengan sukarela dan fungsi awam merupakan satu ketinggalan yang bukan boleh menyebabkan OKT terkeliru dan prejudis terhadap OKT. Seksyen 156 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah adalah seperti berikut: Effect of errors 156. No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars shall be regarded, at any stage of the case, as material unless the accused was in fact misled by that error or omission a) A is charged under section *242 of the Penal Code with “having been in possession of counterfeit coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of it that the coin was counterfeit” the word “fraudulently” being omitted in the charge. Unless it appears that A was in fact misled by this omission the error shall not be regarded as material. [28] Juga seksyen 422 Kanun Keseksaan boleh diguna pakai oleh pihak pendakwaan sekiranya tidak ada kegagalan keadilan. Mahkamah telah membenarkan pertuduhan pindaan dengan mengambil kira bahawa pada setiap masa OKT tidak terkeliru dengan pihak polis yang sedang bertugas SJR yang sedang menjalankan tugas fungsi awamnya. Berkenaan dengan pindaan dengan ‘sukarela’, Mahkamah mendapati sepanjang masa S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 perbicaraan OKT tidak terkeliru dengan perbuatan OKT yang sengaja tidak melakukan ujian nafas. Pihak peguam bela telah memeriksa balas saksi pendakwaan mengenai tindakan OKT adalah disebabkan OKT tidak faham bahasa yang digunakan dan juga berhujah bahawa OKT dalam keadaan tidak sedar berdasarkan keterangan saksi pendakwaan. Maka, amat jelas pihak pembelaan telah memeriksa balas saksi pendakwaan berkenaan isu sukarela. Mahkamah mendapati tiada kegagalan keadilan kerana OKT masih mempunyai peluang untuk memanggil saksi-saksi pendakwaan semula dan Mahkamah membenarkan pemanggilan saksi semula seperti mana dibenarkan di bawah seksyen 173(j)(iii) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan seksyen 162 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [29] Pertuduhan pindaan telah dibacakan semula kepada OKT sebelum keputusan diberikan. OKT telah mengaku tidak bersalah terhadap pertuduhan pindaan tersebut. Pihak pembelaan gagal menunjukkan ketidakadilan terhadap OKT di mana OKT masih mempunyai hak untuk memanggil saksi pendakwaan semula dan OKT tidak terkeliru dengan pertuduhan sejak hari pertama pertuduhan dibacakan. [30] Mahkamah mendapati keterangan SP2 yang menyatakan OKT tidak sedar merujuk kepada perbuatan OKT ketika itu di mana saksi menyatakan OKT kelihatan di bawah pengaruh alkohol. Namun, OKT masih memberi respon dan memberi jawapan dalam bahasa Mandarin. Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 85 Kanun Keseksaan sekiranya pihak pembelaan ingin menggunakan mabuk sebagai pembelaan. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Intoxication when a defence 85. (1) Save as provided in this section and in section 86, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge. (2) Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and— (a) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or (b) the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission. [31] Beban bukti adalah pada pihak pembelaan apabila ingin mengguna pakai seksyen 85 Kanun Keseksaan dan bukannya pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan OKT adalah bukan dalam keadaan tidak sedar. [32] Kesimpulan, keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah kukuh dan kredibel dan Mahkamah mendapati tiada keraguan munasabah yang ditimbulkan. Mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kedua-dua elemen pertuduhan pindaan berdasarkan keterangan yang ada dan OKT dipanggil membela diri. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 F. KES PEMBELAAN [33] OKT telah dipanggil untuk membela diri dan OKT telah memberi keterangan bersumpah. Keterangan OKT boleh disimpulkan seperti berikut: i. OKT menyatakan OKT tidak boleh faham bahasa Melayu dan boleh faham bahasa Inggeris yang mudah. ii. OKT telah ditunjukkan aksi oleh anggota polis dan OKT telah mengikuti. iii. OKT menafikan terdapat anggota polis yang menggunakan bahasa Mandarin. iv. OKT telah meniup alat sebanyak dua kali di mana sekali di tepi jalan dan sekali di balai polis. [34] Pihak pembelaan telah memanggil SP4 semula untuk memeriksa balas berkenaan rakaman percakapan OKT. SP4 mengesahkan bahawa soalan adalah tidak spesifik mengenai halangan yang dilakukan. [35] Pihak pembelaan berhujah bahawa OKT telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan terhadap elemen tersebut memandangkan keterangan OKT dan rakaman percakapan (ekshibit D6) adalah konsisten menyatakan bahawa OKT tidak pernah menghalang tugas pihak polis dalam melakukan ujian kandungan alkohol terhadap OKT. [36] Pihak pembelaan menyatakan pihak pendakwaan gagal menyangkal keterangan OKT dan ekshibit D6 tersebut maka ianya harus diterima oleh Mahkamah ini. SP4 selaku pegawai penyiasat S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 mengakui bahawa siasatan beliau adalah adalah berkenaan siasatan beliau adalah berkenaan menghalang penjawat awam dan tidak beri kerjasama terhadap polis yang ingin tahan OKT, dan bukannya berkenaan tidak memberikan sampel nafas untuk ujian alkohol. [37] Pihak pendakwaan berhujah keterangan-keterangan yang diberikan oleh OKT dalam Mahkamah ini berkenaan dengan kefasihannya dalam bahasa Inggeris mempunyai percanggahan yang menjejaskan kredibilitinya. Semasa pemeriksaan utama OKT, OKT menyatakan bahawa OKT hanya boleh faham perkataan mudah dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, OKT telah menyatakan dia telah tinggal di Malaysia selama 7 tahun, dan juga telah bekerja dengan Syarikat Huawei untuk jangka masa yang sama. Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa keterangan OKT tidak kredible kerana keterangannya bercanggah, mustahil dan tidak masuk akal sama sekali. [38] Pihak pendakwaan ingin menghujahkan bahawa pembelaan OKT bahawa beliau telah mengikut cara-cara SP1 untuk meniup alat SD2+ dan telah meniup alat SD2+ adalah merupakan satu ‘recent invention’ dan bersifat ‘afterthought’. Semasa di peringkat pendakwaan, isu ini tidak langsung tidak ditimbulkan kepada SP1, SP2, SP3 mahupun SP4. Malah pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa OKT enggan meniup alat SD2+. Oleh itu, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa pembelaan OKT berkaitan “telah mengikut cara-cara SP1 untuk meniup alat SD2+ dan telah meniup alat SD2+” adalah merupakan satu ‘recent invention’. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 G. KEPUTUSAN [39] Di akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa versi pembelaan telah berubah daripada OKT tidak mengetahui bahasa yang digunakan SP1 kepada OKT telah mengikuti arahan SP1 apabila SP1 menunjukkan aksi dan OKT telah mengikuti aksi tersebut. [40] Mahkamah merujuk Public Prosecutor v Subahir bin Salmin [2009] MLJU 670 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak bersetuju dengan dapatan Mahkamah yang mempercayai versi pembelaan. “ However, in respect of the First Charge, I do not agree with the acquittal of the Respondent. I find that the trial Judge had erred in fact and in law. The main reason why she acquitted the Respondent was because she believed in the Defence story that there was an agreement by SP7, SD2 and the Respondent to assist SP1 to get 3 months of full salary and his overtime pay even though SP1 did not work the full months for September, October and November 2001. Here, I agree with the Prosecution's submission that the Defence did not raise specifically and in detail the existence of such an agreement of the Company's Management in the course of cross-examining the Prosecution's witness, in particular SP7 i.e. on the question whether it was on the orders of the Company's Management that SPI's kon card was to be filled in that manner so that SP1 could be paid in full even though he was on medical leave. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that at page 124 of the Appeal Record, the Defence Counsel had questioned SP7 regarding such S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 agreement of the Company's Management to help SP1 but SP7 merely replied "tidak ingat". A perusal of the evidence at page 124 of the Appeal Record shows that SP7 was cross- examined on whether he had discussed with the Respondent and SD2 regarding compensation to be paid. SP7 replied that he could not remember. SP7 was then asked whether the salary for October and November 2001 was paid in full as compensation since SP1 did not have insurance and SOCSO. Again SP7 replied that he could not remember. As submitted by the Appellant, even if SP7 could not remember, the Defence should have pursued the matter further and asked SP7 specifically and in detail whether there was an agreement by SP7, SD2 and the Respondent to pay SP1 the full salaries for October and November 2001 in order to assist SP1 who had no insurance or SOCSO. Since the Defence failed to raise this agreement specifically during the cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses, it means that what the Defence later raised during the Defence stage should be rejected on the ground that the evidence regarding the agreement by the Company's Management is a mere concoction or fabrication, or an afterthought. The law regarding this issue is trite.” [41] Pihak pembelaan tidak menimbulkan bahawa OKT telah meniup alat ujian nafas SD2+ semasa kes pendakwaan dan hanya melalui keterangan OKT di peringkat pembelaan. Pihak pembelaan telah memanggil SP4 semula dan diperiksa balas mengenai pengakuan OKT. Sekiranya bahawa OKT telah memberikan keterangan kepada SP4 dan direkodkan dalam rakaman percakapan, maka tidak munasabah bahawa perkara ini tidak ditimbulkan semasa S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 peringkat pendakwaan. Malahan ekshibit D6 adalah pengetahuan OKT sepanjang perbicaraan. [42] SP4 bersetuju bahawa OKT ada memberikan keterangan kepadanya dalam keterangan bahawa OKT telah tiup alat ujian alkohol. SP4 mengakui bahawa tiada soalan spesifik ditanya berkenaan dengan OKT sukarela menghalang pihak polis menjalankan tugas ujian alcohol dan soalan adalah bersifat am. Pihak pembelaan telah dibekalkan rakaman percakapan OKT sekian lama sebelum perbicaraan, maka sekiranya benar cadangan bahawa OKT telah melakukan ujian tersebut seharusnya ditimbulkan kepada semua saksi pendakwaan. Pertuduhan terdapat OKT juga adalah spesifik menyatakan OKT tidak melakukan ujian nafas. Maka, adalah tidak munasabah bahawa OKT menyatakan bahawa OKT ada meniup semasa di peringkat pembelaan. [43] Keterangan OKT adalah tidak kredibel dan konsisten. Mahkamah mendapati pada peringkat pendakwaan, versi pembelaan bahawa OKT tidak melakukan kerana tidak memahami bahasa yang digunakan, dan namun di peringkat pembelaan, OKT tidak faham perkataan blow tetapi OKT telah melakukan ujian nafas tersebut. Keterangan OKT adalah sangat tidak konsisten dan tidak munasabah. OKT menyatakan OKT merupakan seorang yang mempunyai pendidikan tinggi dan memegang jawatan tinggi dalam sebuah syarikat berstatus antarabangsa serta telah menetap di malaysia untuk tempoh masa yang lama. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [44] Sekiranya OKT telah mengikuti arahan, tiada sebab pihak polis perlu menjelaskan beberapa kali dan sehingga menyebabkan satu penahanan kepada OKT. Mahkamah mendapati keterangan OKT sukar dipercayai berbanding saksi pendakwaan. Ketika SJR, saksi pendakwaan adalah lebih fokus melakukan operasi pemeriksaan terhadap motosikal namun telah menahan kereta OKT apabila dilihat kereta OKT terkena kon yang diletakkan untuk SJR. Pertuduhan OKT adalah spesifik kepada cara halangan dilakukan dan bukan halangan daripada ditahan oleh pihak polis. Setelah menilai keseluruhan keterangan secara maximum, Mahkamah mendapati keterangan saksi pendakwaan adalah kredibel dan konsisten manakala keterangan OKT adalah tidak konsisten dan sukar dipercayai. [45] Berkenaan dengan isu kecacatan pertuduhan di mana tiada perkataan sukarela dan tugas fungsi awamnya dalam kertas pertuduhan. Mahkamah telah membenarkan pindaan yang dipohon oleh pihak pendakwaan setelah mengambil kira bahawa OKT tidak terkeliru dengan cara halangan dilakukan atau menyebabkan ketidakadilan perbicaraan. OKT dibenarkan untuk memanggil saksi pendakwaan semula berkenaan pindaan yang dilakukan. OKT masih mendapat satu perbicaraan adil. [46] Pihak pembelaan telah merujuk kepada kes PP v. Ravichanthiran Ganesan [2022] 1 CLJ 804, [2021] MLJU 2372 di mana pihak pembelaan bergantung kes tersebut yang memutuskan bahawa ketinggalan dengan sengaja elemen yang penting menyebabkan pertuduhan adalah cacat. Tambahan pihak pembelaan bergantung S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 kes tersebut dan menyatakan tiada halangan dalam pertuduhan di mana tiada unsur kekerasan jenayah. [47] Mahkamah mendapati kes tersebut harus dibezakan dengan fakta kes ini. Dalam kes PP v. Ravichanthiran Ganesan (supra), Mahkamah Tinggi mendapati bahawa halangan yang dikatakan dengn tidak memberikan kata laluan emel semasa rakaman percakapan 112 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tidak terjumlah sebagai satu halangan. Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan seperti berikut: “(2) Daripada fakta kes, tiada isu halangan fizikal sebenar atau kekerasan jenayah. Di samping itu, keengganan responden untuk memberikan jawapan adalah dibenarkan di bawah peruntukan s 112 KTJ, oleh itu, keengganan tersebut tidak terjumlah kepada secara sukarela menghalang penjawat awam dalam menjalankan fungsi awamnya.” [48] Mahkamah Tinggi mendapati bahawa tiada pencarian dilakukan oleh SP1 maka seksyen 116B KTJ tidak terpakai. Oleh itu keengganan responden/ tertuduh untuk berikan maklumat di bawah 112 KTJ tidak terjumlah satu halangan kerana responden mempunyai hak untuk tidak memberikan keterangan yang boleh menyebabkan satu pertuduhan ke atasnya. [49] Dalam kes ini, halangan yang dilakukan tidak melibatkan kekerasan jenayah namun telah menyebabkan satu bacaan alkohol tidak dapat diambil. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [50] Persoalannya, adakah SP1 mempunyai kuasa untuk menyuruh OKT melakukan ujian nafas. Sekiranya jawapan adalah ya, maka perlu ditanya sama ada keengganan melakukan ujian nafas merupakan satu kehendak undang-undang. Apabila kedua-dua jawapan adalah positif, maka tindakan OKT enggan melakukan ujian nafas merupakan satu halangan kepada SP1. [51] Mahkamah merujuk seksyen yang relevan berkenaan kuasa polis untuk memeriksa kenderaan. Seksyen 24 Akta Polis memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Kuasa pegawai polis untuk memeriksa lesen, kenderaan, dsb. 24. (1) Mana-mana pegawai polis boleh― (a) memberhentikan dan menahan mana-mana orang― (i) yang dilihatnya sedang melakukan apa-apa perbuatan atau ada dalam miliknya apa-apa benda; atau (ii) yang dia ada alasan yang munasabah bagi mengesyaki sedang melakukan apa-apa perbuatan atau ada dalam miliknya apa-apa benda; yang baginya lesen, permit atau kebenaran yang diperlukan di bawah mana-mana undang-undang yang berkuat kuasa, bagi maksud menghendaki orang mengemukakan lesen, permit atau kebenaran itu; (b) memberhenti dan memeriksa tanpa waran mana- mana kenderaan atau vesel yang disyakinya atas alasan yang munasabah sedang digunakan dalam melakukan apa-apa kesalahan terhadap mana-mana undang-undang yang berkuat kuasa: S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Dengan syarat bahawa kenderaan atau vesel itu tidak boleh, tertakluk kepada subseksyen (4), ditahan lebih lama daripada semunasabahnya perlu untuk menyempurnakan pemeriksaan itu. (2) Seseorang yang tidak mengemukakan lesen, permit atau kebenaran di bawah perenggan (1)(a) apabila diminta berbuat demikian oleh seorang pegawai polis boleh ditangkap tanpa waran melainkan dia memberi kepada pegawai polis itu nama dan alamatnya dan, selainnya, memuaskan hati pegawai polis itu yang dia akan mematuhi dengan sewajarnya apa-apa saman atau prosiding lain yang mungkin diambil terhadapnya. (3) Seseorang yang tidak mematuhi apa-apa isyarat munasabah yang diberikan oleh seorang pegawai polis, menghendaki mana-mana orang memberhentikan apa-apa kenderaan atau vesel di bawah subseksyen (1) atau menghalang mana-mana pegawai polis dalam melaksanakan tugasnya di bawah subseksyen itu, adalah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Akta ini, dan mana-mana pegawai polis boleh tanpa waran, menangkap orang itu melainkan dia memberi nama dan alamatnya dan, selainnya, memuaskan hati pegawai polis yang dia akan mematuhi dengan sewajarnya apa-apa saman atau prosiding lain yang mungkin diambil terhadapnya. (4) Mana-mana pegawai polis boleh menyebabkan mana- mana kenderaan atau vesel, yang dia ada alasan yang S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 munasabah untuk mengesyaki telah digunakan dalam melakukan suatu kesalahan terhadap mana-mana undang- undang yang berkuat kuasa atau sebagai keterangan mengenai apa-apa kesalahan yang telah dilakukan, dipindahkan ke ibu pejabat Daerah Polis yang berhampiran sekali atau ke tempat lain yang sesuai, dan Pegawai Penjaga Daerah Polis itu boleh dengan itu menyebabkan kenderaan atau vesel itu ditahan di situ, sementara menunggu penyiasatan, bagi tempoh tidak melebihi empat puluh lapan jam, atau jika, dalam tempoh itu, prosiding dimulakan mengenai apa-apa kesalahan di mana kenderaan atau vesel itu boleh dilucuthakkan di bawah mana-mana undang-undang atau boleh dengan sewajarnya dikemukakan sebagai keterangan, sehingga keputusan muktamad prosiding itu: [52] Berdasarkan seksyen 24 Akta Polis, SP1 mempunyai kuasa untuk menahan dan memeriksa kereta yang dipandu oleh OKT jika secara munasabah bahawa mengesyaki OKT telah memandu di bawah pengaruh alkohol yang merupakan satu kesalahan di bawah Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (APJ). [53] Seterusnya, Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 45B APJ 1987 bagi menjawab persoalan pertama dan kedua sama ada OKT perlu memberikan ujian nafas. Sekyen 45B adalah seperti berikut: Ujian nafas 45B. (1) Jika seseorang pegawai polis yang berpakaian seragam mempunyai sebab yang munasabah untuk mengesyaki— S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 (a) bahawa seseorang telah melakukan sesuatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 44 atau 45 melibatkan minuman yang memabukkan atau di bawah seksyen 45A; atau (b) bahawa seseorang menjadi pemandu atau cuba memandu atau menjaga sesuatu kenderaan motor dalam suatu kemalangan yang melibatkan satu kenderaan atau lebih di sesuatu jalan awam atau tempat awam lain, maka dia boleh, tertakluk kepada seksyen 45D, menghendaki orang itu supaya mengadakan spesimen nafas bagi suatu ujian nafas. (2) Seseorang boleh dikehendaki di bawah subseksyen (1) supaya mengadakan spesimen sama ada di tempat atau dekat dengan tempat di mana kehendak itu dibuat atau, jika kehendak itu dibuat di bawah perenggan (1)(b) dan pegawai polis yang membuat kehendak itu memikirkan patut, di balai polis yang ditentukan oleh pegawai itu (3) Ujian nafas yang dikehendaki di bawah subseksyen (1) hendaklah dilakukan oleh pegawai polis yang menghendaki ujian itu dibuat atau mana-mana pegawai polis lain. (4) Seseorang yang, tanpa alasan yang munasabah, gagal mengadakan spesimen nafas apabila dikehendaki berbuat demikian menurut seksyen ini melakukan suatu kesalahan dan apabila disabitkan hendaklah dihukum denda *tidak kurang daripada satu ribu ringgit dan tidak lebih daripada enam ribu ringgit dan boleh juga dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua belas bulan dan, dalam hal sabitan kali kedua atau kali kemudian, denda tidak kurang daripada dua ribu ringgit dan tidak lebih daripada sepuluh ribu ringgit dan boleh juga dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [54] Berdasarkan seksyen 45B(1), (2) dan (3) APJ 1987, OKT boleh dikehendaki memberikan spesimen nafas di tempat kejadian. Maka, SP1 mempunyai kuasa untuk menyuruh OKT memberikan spesimen di tempat kejadian dan kegagalan OKT memberikan spesimen tanpa alasan munasabah adalah satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 45B(4) APJ 1987. [55] Justeru, halangan dalam kes ini adalah berbeza dengan situasi dengan kes PP v. Ravichanthiran Ganesan (supra) di mana OKT dalam kes ini perlu memberikan spesimen nafas kepada SP1 di tempat kejadian. Keengganan OKT untuk memberikan sampel nafas dengan meniup alat ujian nafas SD2+ telah menyebabkan SP1 terpaksa membawa OKT ke balai dan ujian nafas tidak dapat dijalankan di tempat kejadian seperti yang diingini oleh SP1. Maka, fakta kes adalah jelas, keingkaran untuk mengikuti arahan spesimen telah menyukarkan tugas SP1 dan terpaksa membawa OKT ke balai. [56] Justeru, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pembelaan gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah atau pembelaan yang bermerit. Mahkamah mendapati OKT bersalah dan disabitkan ke atas pertuduhan. H. HUKUMAN [57] Antara faktor mitigasi yang dikemukakan oleh peguam bela adalah seperti berikut: (a) OKT berumur 45 tahun S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 (b) OKT telah berkahwin dan mempunyai tanggungan 2 anak. Isteri merupakan suri rumah dan kedua-dua anak berumur 9 tahun dan 13 tahun masing-masing yang masih bersekolah. (c) sejak OKT dituduh, OKT tidak dapat lagi memperbaharui permit perkerjaan dengan syarikat Huawei dan telah kehilangan sumber pendapatan. OKT kini hanya bergantung kepada wang simpanan. (d) OKT telah memberikan sumbangan dari segi aspek pengetahuan OKT melatih sumber tenaga rakyat Malaysia. (e) OKT juga aktif terlibat dalam aktiviti sukarelawan dan komuniti. (f) OKT tidak bertengkar atau menggunakan kekerasan terhadap pegawai polis. (g) OKT merupakan pesalah pertama dan tiada rekod lampau (h) OKT pada akhirnya telah memberikan spesimen kepada pihak polis. [58] Peguam bela memohon pertimbangan hukuman denda berdasarkan faktor mitigasi yang dikemukakan. [59] Pihak pendakwaan pohon satu hukuman penjara dengan mengambil kira kepentingan awam. Pihak pendakwaan merujuk kepada kes Hairul Ridzuan bin Yaakub v PP [2022] MLJU 2856 di mana hukuman penjara telah dikenakan ke atas kesalahan seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. [60] Kes Hairul (ibid) merupakan keputusan Mahkamah Majistret di mana Mahkamah tidak terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah Majistret yang lain. Mahkamah merujuk kepada fakta kes tersebut yang dipertimbangkan oleh Tuan Majistret dalam menjatuhkan hukuman penjara setelah mengambil kira tindakan OKT: S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 “[51] Perkara ini jelas terlihat daripada tindakan Tertuduh yang dengan sengaja melarikan diri apabila menyedari kehadiran pengadu yang menghampiri kenderaan yang dipandunya. Polis bahkan terpaksa menggunakan kenderaan pasukan untuk menghalang Tertuduh daripada melarikan diri. [52] Sebaliknya, Tertuduh mengambil tindakan drastik dalam ketidakpatuhannya kepada penguatkuasa yang menjalankan undang – undang dengan melanggar kereta pasukan tersebut ketika melarikan diri daripada sekatan pasukan polis dengan cara mengundurkan kenderaan yang dinaikinya. Perbuatan ini lantas mengakibatkan kerugian keapada harta kerajaan disebabkan perlanggaran antara kenderaan dipandunya dengan bahagian hadapan kenderaan pasukan polis [53] Tertuduh bukan sahaja merugikan harta benda kerajaan akibat perlanggaran tersebut, sebaliknya dengan sengaja Tertuduh telah meyebabkan risiko nyawa dan keselamatan keatas polis yang menjalankan tugas penguatkuasaan sewaktu Tertuduh cuba meloloskan diri, apabila Tertuduh bergerak ke hadapan dan dengan menggunakan kenderaan yang sedang dipandunya, Tertuduh meluru ke arah Pengadu yang mengetuai sekatan jalanraya tersebut [54] Tertuduh lantas diberikan amaran agar mematuhi arahan polis untuk memberhentikan kenderaan apabila Pengadu bertindak melepaskan 1 das tembakan ke udara, namun Tertuuh masih dengan sengaja tidak menghiraukan arahan polis tersebut. Sebaliknya tertuduh masih memandu laju S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 meluru kearah pengadu. Sekalipun, pengadu bertindak melepaskan tembakan sebanyak 1 kali lagi ke arah kereta dipandu Tertuduh dan mengenai tayar belakang kanan dalam usaha memastikan Tertuduh menghentikan kenderaan itu namun tertuduh masih tegar melarikan diri. [55] Sehingga tahap ini sekalipun, Tertuduh masih lagi gagal untuk mengambil serius arahan penguatkuasa untuk berhenti bagi tujuan pemeriksaan apabila Tertuduh dengan sengaja lari sewaktu kejar mengejar antara kereta tertuduh dan kereta pasukan polis. [56] Apatah lagi seusai episod kejar-mengejar itu, apabila sampai di Kampung Lubok Gong Rantau Panjang, Tertuduh telahpun dengan sengaja lari meloloskan diri daripada dijekar polis dengan bertindak keluar dari kereta dan terjun ke dalam sungai dan menyeberang melepasi negara jiran iaitu Thailand. [57] Tertuduh sekali lagi menunjukkan betapa sengajanya beliau enggan patuh kepada undang-undang apabila meloloskan diri selama lebih 2 bulan daripada tarikh kejadian jenayah yang dilakukannya apabila tertuduh hanya berjaya ditangkap pada 06/08/2022.” [61] Adalah amat jelas, bahawa halangan yang dilakukan dalam kes Hairul adalah jauh lebih serius di mana terdapat perlanggaran yang dilakukan oleh OKT untuk melarikan diri. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 [62] Sebelum Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman, Mahkamah telah mempertimbangkan tujuan hukuman yang dikenakan ke atas OKT. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Zulhiznie bin Zaini [2021] 12 MLJ 780 di Mahkamah Tinggi menjelaskan tujuan hukuman dikenakan seperti berikut: “…On the other hand, purposes of sentencing are the aims or the outcomes wished to be achieved and realised by the courts in line with the law. A sentence may have a sole or multiple purpose it wishes to achieve based on the circumstances of each case in particular. A magistrate whe determining this must ask oneself: ‘by imposing this sentence, what will the punishment achieve (within the ambits of the law)?’. [26] As it is well known the four classical purposes to be applied when considering the appropriate sentence are retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. Some heinous offences such as murder, culpable homicide, rape, robbery and those which involve violence retribution, deterrence and prevention would be the main focus of the punishment and not rehabilitation. [27] 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 offenders will be equipped with the right mind set and skills to live a life by making choices that are well reasoned and grounded. Thus, by achieving this, the criminal tendency of that person will be suppressed and society will be safeguarded against crimes as the said person would no longer be bent on committing crimes. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [28] In addition, reparation which is a form of restorative justice is also a purpose of sentencing which has shown much emergence recently particularly in the criminal justice systems of western nations. Reparation is based on the notion demanding that a criminal make amends to victims by countervailing the wrong that they have committed in order to correct their crimes. [63] Berdasarkan fakta kes ini, Mahkamah mendapati hukuman pemulihan lebih sesuai daripada pencegahan dengan mengambil kira tiada kekerasan digunakan oleh OKT dan OKT tidak melarikan diri dan wajar diberikan peluang untuk mengubah dan bukannya meletakkan OKT di penjara kerana hukuman penjara tidak memberikan manfaat kepada OKT yang tidak mempunyai tahap agresif atau kecenderungan menggunakan kekerasan. Mengikut kes seperti PP v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256, walaupun Mahkamah perlu mencapai keseimbangan dalam kepentingan awam dan juga kepentingan tertuduh. Mahkamah mendapati kepentingan awam tidak terjejas kerana OKT menerima hukuman atas perbuatan OKT dengan mengambil kira keseriusan kesalahan. [64] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Wai [1988] 3 MLJ 123 dan Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 di mana Mahkamah perlu mempertimbangkan fakta setiap kes. Juga di dalam kes Mohamed Jusoh bin Abdullah and another v Public Prosecutor [1947] 1 MLJ 130, terdapat pelbagai faktor mitigasi yang perlu dipertimbangkan S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 seperti latar belakang, karakter tertuduh sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman dan bukan hanya melihat hukuman maxima. [65] Berdasarkan fakta kes, kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT adalah bukan kesalahan serius dan tidak mendatangkan kerosakkan harta benda atau menyebabkan apa-apa kecederaan. Mahkamah mendapati hukuman berbentuk pemulihan adalah bersesuaian mengambil kira latar belakang OKT bukan seorang penjenayah yang tegar malah OKT mempunyai latar belakang yang baik. OKT tidak mempunyai kesalahan lampau dan amat wajar dipertimbangkan hukuman denda. [66] Pihak pendakwaan berkeras dengan hukuman penjara dengan merujuk kes Hairul (supra) adalah tidak sesuai diaplikasi dalam kes ini berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip kehakiman. Adalah dilihat dalam kes Hairul, Mahkamah telah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara setelah mengambil kira kelakuan OKT yang dengan sengaja menyebabkan kerosakan harta benda dan membahayakan nyawa. Namun dalam kes ini, halangan OKT adalah telah sekadar menyukar pengambilan spesimen dan telah diakui bahawa spesimen akhirnya berjaya diambil dan tidak menyebabkan kerugian atau kecederaan kepada mana-mana pihak. [67] Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan hukuman penjara boleh sampai dua tahun atau denda boleh sehingga RM10,000 atau kedua-duanya. Mahkamah mengenakan hukuman denda RM4000 setelah mengambil kira faktor ekonomi OKT dan kemampuan OKT. OKT mempunyai jawatan tinggi di syarikat Huawei namun telah ditahan kerja dan S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 tidak mempunyai pendapatan. OKT sedang bergantung kepada wang simpanan untuk menyara ahli keluarga. OKT telah mendapat pengajaran sewajarnya apabila OKT tidak lagi dapat bekerja di syarikat Huawei sejak OKT dituduh. Sungguhpun, OKT mengalami kesusahan ekonomi namun OKT masih mempunyai peluang pekerjaan yang baik dan masih berkemampuan untuk membayar denda yang dikenakan. [68] Untuk permohonan kos pendakwaan, Mahkamah mengenakan kos pendakwaan sebanayk RM1000 bagi 4 saksi pendakwaan telah hadir semasa peringkat pendakwaan dan juga SP4 dipanggil semula di peringkat pembelaan. OKT telah kembali ke China menyebabkan perbicaraan yang ditetapkan pada 11 dan 12 January 2023 terpaksa dilapangkan. Saksi pendakwaan telah hadir pada 3 April 2023 namun kes perbicaraan telah ditangguh atas alasan peguam tidak sihat. Kos diberikan di bawah peruntukkan seksyen 427 Kanun Keseksaan mengambil kira kos yang ditanggung akibat daripada penangguhan, tempoh masa perbicaraan dan kehadiran saksi ke Mahkamah. Pendakwa Raya: Sareeka A/P Balakrishnan Peguambela : Muhammad Amiraizat Bin Abdul Rani Disediakan oleh: Wong Chai Sia Majistret Mahkamah Kuala Lumpur S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2023-12-20T16:20:25+0800

Tika 2.6.0

WA-83-3200-04/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH LI YUANFENG

Halangan ke atas penjawat awam-Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan-enggan melakukan ujian nafas merupakan satu halangan kerana menyebabkan pegawai polis tidak dapat mengambil ujian nafas di tempat kejadian.

20/12/2023

Puan Wong Chai Sia

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8ceb5588-699f-4088-ab63-4a0b5e591770&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI KUALA LUMPUR (BIDANG KUASA JENAYAH) DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (DALAM KES JENAYAH NO: WA-83-3200-04/2022) ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA DAN LI YUANFENG ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN A. LATAR BELAKANG [1] Tertuduh (OKT) telah dituduh dengan pertuduhan bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. Pertuduhan adalah seperti berikut:- PERTUDUHAN PERTUDUHAN BAHAWA KAMU PADA 02/04/2022 JAM LEBIH KURANG 0110 PAGI, BERTEMPAT DI TEPI JALAN TUN RAZAK, HADAPAN HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR DI DALAM DAERAH 20/12/2023 16:16:54 WA-83-3200-04/2022 Kand. 32 S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 DANG WANGI, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, DI DAPATI TELAH MENGHALANG PENJAWAT AWAM IAITU KPL 151642 SHAZRUL IZHAM B ABDUL MALEK, DARI MENJALANKAN TUGAS UJIAN KANDUNGAN ALKOHOL TERHADAP KAMU. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 186 KANUN KESEKSAAN. HUKUMAN: JIKA DISABITKAN DENGAN KESALAHAN HENDAKLAH DIHUKUM DENGAN PENJARA SELAMA TEMPOH YANG BOLEH SAMPAI DUA TAHUN, ATAU DENGAN DENDA YANG BOLEH SAMPAI SEPULUH RIBU RINGGIT, ATAU DENGAN KEDUA-DUANYA. [2] Setelah pertuduhan dibacakan dalam bahasa mandarin iaitu bahasa yang difahami oleh OKT, OKT tidak mengaku bersalah terhadap ke atas pertuduhan dan mohon perbicaraan. [3] Pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil seramai 4 orang saksi untuk menyokong kes pendakwaan iaitu: a) SP 1- Kpl Shazrul Izham Bin Abdul Malek b) SP 2- Insp Hazliza Binti Mat Ruzi c) SP 3- L/Kpl Azraei Bin Hassan d) SP4- Insp Pat Wil Liam [4] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah telah mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie dan OKT dipanggil untuk membela diri. Pada akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah mendapati pihak pembelaan masih gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah atau pembelaan bermerit dan S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 telah mendapati OKT bersalah dan mensabitkan OKT ke atas pertuduhan. Mahkamah telah menjatuhkan hukuman denda RM4000 sekiranya gagal bayar 2 bulan penjara dan kos pendakwaan sebanyak RM1000 sekiranya gagal bayar 1 bulan penjara. B. KES PERINGKAT PENDAKWAAN [5] Pada 8/9/2018 jam lebih kurang 3.00 pagi, SP1 bersama dengan SP2 dan SP3 sedang bertugas untuk sekatan jalan raya (SJR) di Jalan Tun Razak. Semasa SP1 sedang bertugas di SJR telah menahan sebuah kereta Honda CRV yang dipandu oleh OKT. SP1 mendapati OKT berbau alkohol dan muka berwarna merah. [6] SP1 telah mengarah OKT untuk membuat ujian nafas. SP1 dan telah memberikan arahan dalam bahasa Inggeris yang mudah. SP1 telah bercakap “ I want to test alchohol, I want you to blow this machine’. SP1 menggunakan bahasa Inggeris yang mudah kerana SP1 mendapati OKT tidak faham bahasa Melayu. SP1 juga telah menunjukkan cara meniup kepada OKT dan OKT enggan melakukan. [7] Setelah arahan diberikan, OKT enggan mengikuti arahan diberikan oleh SP1. SP1 telah memaklumkan kepada SP2 yang merupakan pegawai SJR. SP2 mengarahkan SP1 untuk membawa OKT ke balai polis. SP1 menyatakan arahan yang sama diterangkan dalam bahasa Mandarin oleh SP3 di tempat kejadian. OKT faham namun enggan melakukan dan enggan mengikut ke balai. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] OKT ditahan kerana menghalang SP1 untuk melaksanakan tugas awamnya kerana OKT enggan meniup alat ujian nafas SD2+. C. PERUNTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG [9] Menurut seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (supra), pihak pendakwaan perlu membuktikan satu kes prima facie di akhir kes pendakwaan. Begitu juga di dalam seksyen 173 (h) (i) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Peruntukan tersebut menyatakan bahawa apabila kes pendakwaan berakhir, mahkamah akan menimbangkan samada pendakwaan telah membuat suatu prima facie kes terhadap tertuduh. [10] Pengujian kes secara prima facie telah diputuskan di dalam kes yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan iaitu Balachandran v PP [2005] 2 MLJ 302 di mana mahkamah memutuskan bahawa: “The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie. As the accused can be convicted on the prima facie evidence it must have reached a standard which is capable of supporting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt” “A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side. The result is that the force of the evidence adduced must be such that, if unrebutted, it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts exist or did happen. On the other hand if a prima facie case has not been made out it means that there is no material evidence which can be believed in the sense as described earlier. 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. As the trial is without a jury it is only with such a positive evaluation can the court make a determination for the purpose of s. 180(2) and (3)...” [11] Begitu juga di dalam kes Looi Kow Chai & Anor v PP (2003) 1 CLJ 734 d dinyatakan sebagai; “A jugde sitting alone must subject the prosecution evidence to the maximum evaluation and ask himself the question “ if I decide to call upon the accused to enter his defence and he elects to remain silent, am I prepared to convict him on the totality of the evidence contain in the prosecution case?”If the answer was in the negative, then no prima facie case had been made out and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal…” S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 D. PEMBUKTIAN PERTUDUHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 186 KANUN KESEKSAAN [12] Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan menyatakan: “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand ringgit or with both.” [13] Fakta yang perlu dibuktikan bagi memenuhi elemen pertuduhan seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan adalah: a.OKT menghalang penjawat awam yang sedang menjalankan tugasnya; b. OKT melakukan halangan dengan sukarela. [14] Merujuk kepada kes Tan Teck Yam v PP [1968] 1 MLJ 57 seperti mana dirujuk oleh pihak pendakwaan di mana prinsip yang diguna pakai oleh Mahkamah adalah bahawa intipati kesalahan ini adalah pada kelakuan menghalang adalah menyebabkan penjawat awam sukar melakukan tugasnya. [15] Pihak pendakwaan berhujah bahawa semua elemen dalam pertuduhan telah dibuktikan berdasarkan keterangan berikut: i. SP1 telah mengarahkan OKT untuk memberikan kerjasama untuk meniup alat SD2+ tersebut dan OKT enggan melakukanya. ii. Arahan kepada OKT telah diberikan oleh SP1 dengan menggunakan bahasa Inggeris yang mudah difahami. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 iii. SP1 juga telah menunjukkan cara-cara untuk meniup alat SD2+ tersebut. iv. Semakan kewarganegaraan OKT juga telah dilakukan di mana passport OKT disemak dan apabila mendapati OKT adalah warganegara China, cubaan untuk berkomunikasi dalam bahasa Mandarin telah dilakukan kerana SP3 boleh berbahasa Mandarin. v. SP3 telah menerangkan arahan SP1 dalam bahasa Mandarin, OKT telah memahaminya namun masih enggan mengikuti arahan tersebut. vi. SP1 menyatakan oleh kerana OKT enggan menjalani ujian kandungan alkohol SD2+, SP2 telah memberikan arahan supaya OKT dibawa ke balai polis trafik untuk menjalani ujian kandungan alkohol di sana. vii. Keterangan SP1 disokong oleh SP2 dan SP3. [16] Pihak pendakwaan berhujah bahawa SP1 sedang menjalankan tugas sekatan jalan raya untuk operasi motosikal. Namun, kereta yang dipandu oleh OKT telah melanggar kon SJR menyebabkan SP1 membuat pemeriksaan terhadap OKT. Ketika itu, SP1 mengesyaki OKT di bawah pengaruh OKT dan telah meminta OKT untuk melakukan ujian nafas. Walaupun OKT faham dengan permintaan polis, OKT enggan melakukan ujian nafas tersebut. [17] Hal ini menyebabkan ujian nafas tidak dapat dilakukan oleh SP1 dan OKT perlu dibawa ke balai polis. [18] Berdasarkan keterangan saksi pendakwaan, elemen pertama telah dipenuhi di mana SP1, SP2 dan SP3 sedang bertugas S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 membuat SJR di Jalan Tun Razak. OKT telah diminta membuat ujian nafas dan OKT enggan mengikuti arahan tersebut. Elemen kedua terbukti apabila pelbagai cara digunakan oleh saksi pendakwaan dalam menerangkan arahan kepada OKT, OKT masih enggan mengikuti arahan diberikan. Tindakan OKT adalah dalam pengetahuan OKT secara sukarela enggan mengikuti arahan diberikan. [19] Peguam bela berhujah bahawa tiada kes prima facie terhadap pertuduhan ke atas OKT atas alasan berikut: a) OKT merupakan warganegara China yang tidak memahami bahasa Malaysia. b) Pertuduhan terhadap OKT adalah cacat di mana seksyen kesalahan 182 dan fakta kes adalah tidak selaras dengan dengan seksyen 182 Kanun Keseksaan. c) OKT adalah keadaan tidak sedar dan tiada elemen mens rea dapat dibuktikan. d) Tiada elemen menghalang kekerasan secara jenayah E. ISU [20] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan, mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap OKT. [21] Pihak pembelaan berhujah pertuduhan adalah cacat kerana OKT dituduh dibawah seksyen 182 Kanun Keseksaan yang membawa elemen berbeza. Pihak pembelaan menyatakan keterangan saksi pendakwaan di Mahkamah membawa kepada satu pertuduhan S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 yang berlainan iaitu di bawah Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. Maka, pertuduhan di bawah seksyen yang salah tersebut telahpun diterjemahkan dalam bahasa Mandarin kepada OKT. [22] Mengikut nota prosiding Mahkamah bertarikh 8 April 2022 apabila pertuduhan pertama kali dibacakan, pertuduhan telah dipinda kepada seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan dan OKT ketika itu telah diterangkan pertuduhan bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. Ketika itu, OKT diwakili oleh peguam yang berlainan. Mahkamah mendapati tiada kecacatan terhadap seksyen kesalahan di mana pertuduhan telah dipinda sebelum OKT diterangkan pertuduhan. [23] Isu berkenaan dengan OKT tidak memahami bahasa Malaysia tidak menjadikan perbicaraan tidak adil atau OKT tidak faham prosiding Mahkamah. Mahkamah telah menyediakan jurubahasa yang fasih bahasa mandarin sepanjang kes dan perbicaraan untuk menerangkan keseluruhan prosiding kepada OKT. Mahkamah telah memastikan seksyen pertuduhan adalah betul sebelum pertuduhan dibacakan kepada OKT. Peguam bela terpelajar telah terkhilaf dalam isu pertuduhan seksyen yang salah memandangkan pindaan telah dibuat pada tarikh pertama OKT telah dipertuduhkan di Mahkamah. Maka, tiada alasan bahawa OKT telah dibacakan seksyen yang salah dan perbicaraan adalah tersilap arah daripada pertuduhan. [24] Keduanya, pihak pembelaan menyatakan kegagalan pihak pendakwaan menyatakan ‘voluntarily’ atau dengan sukarela dalam pertuduhan menyebabkan pertuduhan adalah cacat dan tidak S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 boleh dibaiki menggunakan seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [25] Pihak pendakwaan telah memohon pindaan pertuduhan dalam hujahan. Pihak pendakwaan berhujah bahawa pertuduhan asal juga mendedahkan notis yang mencukupi mengenai kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT. Pertuduhan pindaan yang dicadangkan adalah seperti berikut: ‘BAHAWA KAMU ADA 02/04/2022 JAM LEBIH KURANG JAM 0110 PAGI BERTEMPAT DI TEPI JALAN TUN RAZAK, HADAPAN HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR DI DALAM DAERAH DANG WANGI, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, DIDAPATI TELAH DENGAN SUKARELA MENGHALANG PENJAWAT AWAM IAITU KPL 151642 SHAZRUL IZHAM B ABDUL MALEK, DARI MENJALANKAN TUGAS FUNGSI AWAMNYA IAITU MELAKUKAN UJIAN KANDUNGAN ALKOHOL TERHADAP KAMU. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 186 KANUN KESEKSAAN. [26] Mahkamah membenarkan pindaan yang dipohon oleh TPR mengikut peruntukan seksyen 158 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Seksyen 158 Kanun Tatacara memperuntukkan seperti berikut: 158. (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [27] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada seksyen 156 Kanun Keseksaan dan contoh ilustrasi di mana ketinggalan perkataan dengan sukarela dan fungsi awam merupakan satu ketinggalan yang bukan boleh menyebabkan OKT terkeliru dan prejudis terhadap OKT. Seksyen 156 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah adalah seperti berikut: Effect of errors 156. No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars shall be regarded, at any stage of the case, as material unless the accused was in fact misled by that error or omission a) A is charged under section *242 of the Penal Code with “having been in possession of counterfeit coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of it that the coin was counterfeit” the word “fraudulently” being omitted in the charge. Unless it appears that A was in fact misled by this omission the error shall not be regarded as material. [28] Juga seksyen 422 Kanun Keseksaan boleh diguna pakai oleh pihak pendakwaan sekiranya tidak ada kegagalan keadilan. Mahkamah telah membenarkan pertuduhan pindaan dengan mengambil kira bahawa pada setiap masa OKT tidak terkeliru dengan pihak polis yang sedang bertugas SJR yang sedang menjalankan tugas fungsi awamnya. Berkenaan dengan pindaan dengan ‘sukarela’, Mahkamah mendapati sepanjang masa S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 perbicaraan OKT tidak terkeliru dengan perbuatan OKT yang sengaja tidak melakukan ujian nafas. Pihak peguam bela telah memeriksa balas saksi pendakwaan mengenai tindakan OKT adalah disebabkan OKT tidak faham bahasa yang digunakan dan juga berhujah bahawa OKT dalam keadaan tidak sedar berdasarkan keterangan saksi pendakwaan. Maka, amat jelas pihak pembelaan telah memeriksa balas saksi pendakwaan berkenaan isu sukarela. Mahkamah mendapati tiada kegagalan keadilan kerana OKT masih mempunyai peluang untuk memanggil saksi-saksi pendakwaan semula dan Mahkamah membenarkan pemanggilan saksi semula seperti mana dibenarkan di bawah seksyen 173(j)(iii) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan seksyen 162 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [29] Pertuduhan pindaan telah dibacakan semula kepada OKT sebelum keputusan diberikan. OKT telah mengaku tidak bersalah terhadap pertuduhan pindaan tersebut. Pihak pembelaan gagal menunjukkan ketidakadilan terhadap OKT di mana OKT masih mempunyai hak untuk memanggil saksi pendakwaan semula dan OKT tidak terkeliru dengan pertuduhan sejak hari pertama pertuduhan dibacakan. [30] Mahkamah mendapati keterangan SP2 yang menyatakan OKT tidak sedar merujuk kepada perbuatan OKT ketika itu di mana saksi menyatakan OKT kelihatan di bawah pengaruh alkohol. Namun, OKT masih memberi respon dan memberi jawapan dalam bahasa Mandarin. Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 85 Kanun Keseksaan sekiranya pihak pembelaan ingin menggunakan mabuk sebagai pembelaan. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Intoxication when a defence 85. (1) Save as provided in this section and in section 86, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge. (2) Intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and— (a) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or (b) the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission. [31] Beban bukti adalah pada pihak pembelaan apabila ingin mengguna pakai seksyen 85 Kanun Keseksaan dan bukannya pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan OKT adalah bukan dalam keadaan tidak sedar. [32] Kesimpulan, keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah kukuh dan kredibel dan Mahkamah mendapati tiada keraguan munasabah yang ditimbulkan. Mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kedua-dua elemen pertuduhan pindaan berdasarkan keterangan yang ada dan OKT dipanggil membela diri. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 F. KES PEMBELAAN [33] OKT telah dipanggil untuk membela diri dan OKT telah memberi keterangan bersumpah. Keterangan OKT boleh disimpulkan seperti berikut: i. OKT menyatakan OKT tidak boleh faham bahasa Melayu dan boleh faham bahasa Inggeris yang mudah. ii. OKT telah ditunjukkan aksi oleh anggota polis dan OKT telah mengikuti. iii. OKT menafikan terdapat anggota polis yang menggunakan bahasa Mandarin. iv. OKT telah meniup alat sebanyak dua kali di mana sekali di tepi jalan dan sekali di balai polis. [34] Pihak pembelaan telah memanggil SP4 semula untuk memeriksa balas berkenaan rakaman percakapan OKT. SP4 mengesahkan bahawa soalan adalah tidak spesifik mengenai halangan yang dilakukan. [35] Pihak pembelaan berhujah bahawa OKT telah berjaya menimbulkan keraguan terhadap elemen tersebut memandangkan keterangan OKT dan rakaman percakapan (ekshibit D6) adalah konsisten menyatakan bahawa OKT tidak pernah menghalang tugas pihak polis dalam melakukan ujian kandungan alkohol terhadap OKT. [36] Pihak pembelaan menyatakan pihak pendakwaan gagal menyangkal keterangan OKT dan ekshibit D6 tersebut maka ianya harus diterima oleh Mahkamah ini. SP4 selaku pegawai penyiasat S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 mengakui bahawa siasatan beliau adalah adalah berkenaan siasatan beliau adalah berkenaan menghalang penjawat awam dan tidak beri kerjasama terhadap polis yang ingin tahan OKT, dan bukannya berkenaan tidak memberikan sampel nafas untuk ujian alkohol. [37] Pihak pendakwaan berhujah keterangan-keterangan yang diberikan oleh OKT dalam Mahkamah ini berkenaan dengan kefasihannya dalam bahasa Inggeris mempunyai percanggahan yang menjejaskan kredibilitinya. Semasa pemeriksaan utama OKT, OKT menyatakan bahawa OKT hanya boleh faham perkataan mudah dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, OKT telah menyatakan dia telah tinggal di Malaysia selama 7 tahun, dan juga telah bekerja dengan Syarikat Huawei untuk jangka masa yang sama. Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa keterangan OKT tidak kredible kerana keterangannya bercanggah, mustahil dan tidak masuk akal sama sekali. [38] Pihak pendakwaan ingin menghujahkan bahawa pembelaan OKT bahawa beliau telah mengikut cara-cara SP1 untuk meniup alat SD2+ dan telah meniup alat SD2+ adalah merupakan satu ‘recent invention’ dan bersifat ‘afterthought’. Semasa di peringkat pendakwaan, isu ini tidak langsung tidak ditimbulkan kepada SP1, SP2, SP3 mahupun SP4. Malah pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa OKT enggan meniup alat SD2+. Oleh itu, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa pembelaan OKT berkaitan “telah mengikut cara-cara SP1 untuk meniup alat SD2+ dan telah meniup alat SD2+” adalah merupakan satu ‘recent invention’. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 G. KEPUTUSAN [39] Di akhir kes pembelaan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa versi pembelaan telah berubah daripada OKT tidak mengetahui bahasa yang digunakan SP1 kepada OKT telah mengikuti arahan SP1 apabila SP1 menunjukkan aksi dan OKT telah mengikuti aksi tersebut. [40] Mahkamah merujuk Public Prosecutor v Subahir bin Salmin [2009] MLJU 670 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi tidak bersetuju dengan dapatan Mahkamah yang mempercayai versi pembelaan. “ However, in respect of the First Charge, I do not agree with the acquittal of the Respondent. I find that the trial Judge had erred in fact and in law. The main reason why she acquitted the Respondent was because she believed in the Defence story that there was an agreement by SP7, SD2 and the Respondent to assist SP1 to get 3 months of full salary and his overtime pay even though SP1 did not work the full months for September, October and November 2001. Here, I agree with the Prosecution's submission that the Defence did not raise specifically and in detail the existence of such an agreement of the Company's Management in the course of cross-examining the Prosecution's witness, in particular SP7 i.e. on the question whether it was on the orders of the Company's Management that SPI's kon card was to be filled in that manner so that SP1 could be paid in full even though he was on medical leave. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that at page 124 of the Appeal Record, the Defence Counsel had questioned SP7 regarding such S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 agreement of the Company's Management to help SP1 but SP7 merely replied "tidak ingat". A perusal of the evidence at page 124 of the Appeal Record shows that SP7 was cross- examined on whether he had discussed with the Respondent and SD2 regarding compensation to be paid. SP7 replied that he could not remember. SP7 was then asked whether the salary for October and November 2001 was paid in full as compensation since SP1 did not have insurance and SOCSO. Again SP7 replied that he could not remember. As submitted by the Appellant, even if SP7 could not remember, the Defence should have pursued the matter further and asked SP7 specifically and in detail whether there was an agreement by SP7, SD2 and the Respondent to pay SP1 the full salaries for October and November 2001 in order to assist SP1 who had no insurance or SOCSO. Since the Defence failed to raise this agreement specifically during the cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses, it means that what the Defence later raised during the Defence stage should be rejected on the ground that the evidence regarding the agreement by the Company's Management is a mere concoction or fabrication, or an afterthought. The law regarding this issue is trite.” [41] Pihak pembelaan tidak menimbulkan bahawa OKT telah meniup alat ujian nafas SD2+ semasa kes pendakwaan dan hanya melalui keterangan OKT di peringkat pembelaan. Pihak pembelaan telah memanggil SP4 semula dan diperiksa balas mengenai pengakuan OKT. Sekiranya bahawa OKT telah memberikan keterangan kepada SP4 dan direkodkan dalam rakaman percakapan, maka tidak munasabah bahawa perkara ini tidak ditimbulkan semasa S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 peringkat pendakwaan. Malahan ekshibit D6 adalah pengetahuan OKT sepanjang perbicaraan. [42] SP4 bersetuju bahawa OKT ada memberikan keterangan kepadanya dalam keterangan bahawa OKT telah tiup alat ujian alkohol. SP4 mengakui bahawa tiada soalan spesifik ditanya berkenaan dengan OKT sukarela menghalang pihak polis menjalankan tugas ujian alcohol dan soalan adalah bersifat am. Pihak pembelaan telah dibekalkan rakaman percakapan OKT sekian lama sebelum perbicaraan, maka sekiranya benar cadangan bahawa OKT telah melakukan ujian tersebut seharusnya ditimbulkan kepada semua saksi pendakwaan. Pertuduhan terdapat OKT juga adalah spesifik menyatakan OKT tidak melakukan ujian nafas. Maka, adalah tidak munasabah bahawa OKT menyatakan bahawa OKT ada meniup semasa di peringkat pembelaan. [43] Keterangan OKT adalah tidak kredibel dan konsisten. Mahkamah mendapati pada peringkat pendakwaan, versi pembelaan bahawa OKT tidak melakukan kerana tidak memahami bahasa yang digunakan, dan namun di peringkat pembelaan, OKT tidak faham perkataan blow tetapi OKT telah melakukan ujian nafas tersebut. Keterangan OKT adalah sangat tidak konsisten dan tidak munasabah. OKT menyatakan OKT merupakan seorang yang mempunyai pendidikan tinggi dan memegang jawatan tinggi dalam sebuah syarikat berstatus antarabangsa serta telah menetap di malaysia untuk tempoh masa yang lama. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [44] Sekiranya OKT telah mengikuti arahan, tiada sebab pihak polis perlu menjelaskan beberapa kali dan sehingga menyebabkan satu penahanan kepada OKT. Mahkamah mendapati keterangan OKT sukar dipercayai berbanding saksi pendakwaan. Ketika SJR, saksi pendakwaan adalah lebih fokus melakukan operasi pemeriksaan terhadap motosikal namun telah menahan kereta OKT apabila dilihat kereta OKT terkena kon yang diletakkan untuk SJR. Pertuduhan OKT adalah spesifik kepada cara halangan dilakukan dan bukan halangan daripada ditahan oleh pihak polis. Setelah menilai keseluruhan keterangan secara maximum, Mahkamah mendapati keterangan saksi pendakwaan adalah kredibel dan konsisten manakala keterangan OKT adalah tidak konsisten dan sukar dipercayai. [45] Berkenaan dengan isu kecacatan pertuduhan di mana tiada perkataan sukarela dan tugas fungsi awamnya dalam kertas pertuduhan. Mahkamah telah membenarkan pindaan yang dipohon oleh pihak pendakwaan setelah mengambil kira bahawa OKT tidak terkeliru dengan cara halangan dilakukan atau menyebabkan ketidakadilan perbicaraan. OKT dibenarkan untuk memanggil saksi pendakwaan semula berkenaan pindaan yang dilakukan. OKT masih mendapat satu perbicaraan adil. [46] Pihak pembelaan telah merujuk kepada kes PP v. Ravichanthiran Ganesan [2022] 1 CLJ 804, [2021] MLJU 2372 di mana pihak pembelaan bergantung kes tersebut yang memutuskan bahawa ketinggalan dengan sengaja elemen yang penting menyebabkan pertuduhan adalah cacat. Tambahan pihak pembelaan bergantung S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 kes tersebut dan menyatakan tiada halangan dalam pertuduhan di mana tiada unsur kekerasan jenayah. [47] Mahkamah mendapati kes tersebut harus dibezakan dengan fakta kes ini. Dalam kes PP v. Ravichanthiran Ganesan (supra), Mahkamah Tinggi mendapati bahawa halangan yang dikatakan dengn tidak memberikan kata laluan emel semasa rakaman percakapan 112 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah tidak terjumlah sebagai satu halangan. Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan seperti berikut: “(2) Daripada fakta kes, tiada isu halangan fizikal sebenar atau kekerasan jenayah. Di samping itu, keengganan responden untuk memberikan jawapan adalah dibenarkan di bawah peruntukan s 112 KTJ, oleh itu, keengganan tersebut tidak terjumlah kepada secara sukarela menghalang penjawat awam dalam menjalankan fungsi awamnya.” [48] Mahkamah Tinggi mendapati bahawa tiada pencarian dilakukan oleh SP1 maka seksyen 116B KTJ tidak terpakai. Oleh itu keengganan responden/ tertuduh untuk berikan maklumat di bawah 112 KTJ tidak terjumlah satu halangan kerana responden mempunyai hak untuk tidak memberikan keterangan yang boleh menyebabkan satu pertuduhan ke atasnya. [49] Dalam kes ini, halangan yang dilakukan tidak melibatkan kekerasan jenayah namun telah menyebabkan satu bacaan alkohol tidak dapat diambil. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [50] Persoalannya, adakah SP1 mempunyai kuasa untuk menyuruh OKT melakukan ujian nafas. Sekiranya jawapan adalah ya, maka perlu ditanya sama ada keengganan melakukan ujian nafas merupakan satu kehendak undang-undang. Apabila kedua-dua jawapan adalah positif, maka tindakan OKT enggan melakukan ujian nafas merupakan satu halangan kepada SP1. [51] Mahkamah merujuk seksyen yang relevan berkenaan kuasa polis untuk memeriksa kenderaan. Seksyen 24 Akta Polis memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Kuasa pegawai polis untuk memeriksa lesen, kenderaan, dsb. 24. (1) Mana-mana pegawai polis boleh― (a) memberhentikan dan menahan mana-mana orang― (i) yang dilihatnya sedang melakukan apa-apa perbuatan atau ada dalam miliknya apa-apa benda; atau (ii) yang dia ada alasan yang munasabah bagi mengesyaki sedang melakukan apa-apa perbuatan atau ada dalam miliknya apa-apa benda; yang baginya lesen, permit atau kebenaran yang diperlukan di bawah mana-mana undang-undang yang berkuat kuasa, bagi maksud menghendaki orang mengemukakan lesen, permit atau kebenaran itu; (b) memberhenti dan memeriksa tanpa waran mana- mana kenderaan atau vesel yang disyakinya atas alasan yang munasabah sedang digunakan dalam melakukan apa-apa kesalahan terhadap mana-mana undang-undang yang berkuat kuasa: S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Dengan syarat bahawa kenderaan atau vesel itu tidak boleh, tertakluk kepada subseksyen (4), ditahan lebih lama daripada semunasabahnya perlu untuk menyempurnakan pemeriksaan itu. (2) Seseorang yang tidak mengemukakan lesen, permit atau kebenaran di bawah perenggan (1)(a) apabila diminta berbuat demikian oleh seorang pegawai polis boleh ditangkap tanpa waran melainkan dia memberi kepada pegawai polis itu nama dan alamatnya dan, selainnya, memuaskan hati pegawai polis itu yang dia akan mematuhi dengan sewajarnya apa-apa saman atau prosiding lain yang mungkin diambil terhadapnya. (3) Seseorang yang tidak mematuhi apa-apa isyarat munasabah yang diberikan oleh seorang pegawai polis, menghendaki mana-mana orang memberhentikan apa-apa kenderaan atau vesel di bawah subseksyen (1) atau menghalang mana-mana pegawai polis dalam melaksanakan tugasnya di bawah subseksyen itu, adalah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Akta ini, dan mana-mana pegawai polis boleh tanpa waran, menangkap orang itu melainkan dia memberi nama dan alamatnya dan, selainnya, memuaskan hati pegawai polis yang dia akan mematuhi dengan sewajarnya apa-apa saman atau prosiding lain yang mungkin diambil terhadapnya. (4) Mana-mana pegawai polis boleh menyebabkan mana- mana kenderaan atau vesel, yang dia ada alasan yang S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 munasabah untuk mengesyaki telah digunakan dalam melakukan suatu kesalahan terhadap mana-mana undang- undang yang berkuat kuasa atau sebagai keterangan mengenai apa-apa kesalahan yang telah dilakukan, dipindahkan ke ibu pejabat Daerah Polis yang berhampiran sekali atau ke tempat lain yang sesuai, dan Pegawai Penjaga Daerah Polis itu boleh dengan itu menyebabkan kenderaan atau vesel itu ditahan di situ, sementara menunggu penyiasatan, bagi tempoh tidak melebihi empat puluh lapan jam, atau jika, dalam tempoh itu, prosiding dimulakan mengenai apa-apa kesalahan di mana kenderaan atau vesel itu boleh dilucuthakkan di bawah mana-mana undang-undang atau boleh dengan sewajarnya dikemukakan sebagai keterangan, sehingga keputusan muktamad prosiding itu: [52] Berdasarkan seksyen 24 Akta Polis, SP1 mempunyai kuasa untuk menahan dan memeriksa kereta yang dipandu oleh OKT jika secara munasabah bahawa mengesyaki OKT telah memandu di bawah pengaruh alkohol yang merupakan satu kesalahan di bawah Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (APJ). [53] Seterusnya, Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 45B APJ 1987 bagi menjawab persoalan pertama dan kedua sama ada OKT perlu memberikan ujian nafas. Sekyen 45B adalah seperti berikut: Ujian nafas 45B. (1) Jika seseorang pegawai polis yang berpakaian seragam mempunyai sebab yang munasabah untuk mengesyaki— S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 (a) bahawa seseorang telah melakukan sesuatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 44 atau 45 melibatkan minuman yang memabukkan atau di bawah seksyen 45A; atau (b) bahawa seseorang menjadi pemandu atau cuba memandu atau menjaga sesuatu kenderaan motor dalam suatu kemalangan yang melibatkan satu kenderaan atau lebih di sesuatu jalan awam atau tempat awam lain, maka dia boleh, tertakluk kepada seksyen 45D, menghendaki orang itu supaya mengadakan spesimen nafas bagi suatu ujian nafas. (2) Seseorang boleh dikehendaki di bawah subseksyen (1) supaya mengadakan spesimen sama ada di tempat atau dekat dengan tempat di mana kehendak itu dibuat atau, jika kehendak itu dibuat di bawah perenggan (1)(b) dan pegawai polis yang membuat kehendak itu memikirkan patut, di balai polis yang ditentukan oleh pegawai itu (3) Ujian nafas yang dikehendaki di bawah subseksyen (1) hendaklah dilakukan oleh pegawai polis yang menghendaki ujian itu dibuat atau mana-mana pegawai polis lain. (4) Seseorang yang, tanpa alasan yang munasabah, gagal mengadakan spesimen nafas apabila dikehendaki berbuat demikian menurut seksyen ini melakukan suatu kesalahan dan apabila disabitkan hendaklah dihukum denda *tidak kurang daripada satu ribu ringgit dan tidak lebih daripada enam ribu ringgit dan boleh juga dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua belas bulan dan, dalam hal sabitan kali kedua atau kali kemudian, denda tidak kurang daripada dua ribu ringgit dan tidak lebih daripada sepuluh ribu ringgit dan boleh juga dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [54] Berdasarkan seksyen 45B(1), (2) dan (3) APJ 1987, OKT boleh dikehendaki memberikan spesimen nafas di tempat kejadian. Maka, SP1 mempunyai kuasa untuk menyuruh OKT memberikan spesimen di tempat kejadian dan kegagalan OKT memberikan spesimen tanpa alasan munasabah adalah satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 45B(4) APJ 1987. [55] Justeru, halangan dalam kes ini adalah berbeza dengan situasi dengan kes PP v. Ravichanthiran Ganesan (supra) di mana OKT dalam kes ini perlu memberikan spesimen nafas kepada SP1 di tempat kejadian. Keengganan OKT untuk memberikan sampel nafas dengan meniup alat ujian nafas SD2+ telah menyebabkan SP1 terpaksa membawa OKT ke balai dan ujian nafas tidak dapat dijalankan di tempat kejadian seperti yang diingini oleh SP1. Maka, fakta kes adalah jelas, keingkaran untuk mengikuti arahan spesimen telah menyukarkan tugas SP1 dan terpaksa membawa OKT ke balai. [56] Justeru, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pembelaan gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah atau pembelaan yang bermerit. Mahkamah mendapati OKT bersalah dan disabitkan ke atas pertuduhan. H. HUKUMAN [57] Antara faktor mitigasi yang dikemukakan oleh peguam bela adalah seperti berikut: (a) OKT berumur 45 tahun S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 (b) OKT telah berkahwin dan mempunyai tanggungan 2 anak. Isteri merupakan suri rumah dan kedua-dua anak berumur 9 tahun dan 13 tahun masing-masing yang masih bersekolah. (c) sejak OKT dituduh, OKT tidak dapat lagi memperbaharui permit perkerjaan dengan syarikat Huawei dan telah kehilangan sumber pendapatan. OKT kini hanya bergantung kepada wang simpanan. (d) OKT telah memberikan sumbangan dari segi aspek pengetahuan OKT melatih sumber tenaga rakyat Malaysia. (e) OKT juga aktif terlibat dalam aktiviti sukarelawan dan komuniti. (f) OKT tidak bertengkar atau menggunakan kekerasan terhadap pegawai polis. (g) OKT merupakan pesalah pertama dan tiada rekod lampau (h) OKT pada akhirnya telah memberikan spesimen kepada pihak polis. [58] Peguam bela memohon pertimbangan hukuman denda berdasarkan faktor mitigasi yang dikemukakan. [59] Pihak pendakwaan pohon satu hukuman penjara dengan mengambil kira kepentingan awam. Pihak pendakwaan merujuk kepada kes Hairul Ridzuan bin Yaakub v PP [2022] MLJU 2856 di mana hukuman penjara telah dikenakan ke atas kesalahan seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. [60] Kes Hairul (ibid) merupakan keputusan Mahkamah Majistret di mana Mahkamah tidak terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah Majistret yang lain. Mahkamah merujuk kepada fakta kes tersebut yang dipertimbangkan oleh Tuan Majistret dalam menjatuhkan hukuman penjara setelah mengambil kira tindakan OKT: S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 “[51] Perkara ini jelas terlihat daripada tindakan Tertuduh yang dengan sengaja melarikan diri apabila menyedari kehadiran pengadu yang menghampiri kenderaan yang dipandunya. Polis bahkan terpaksa menggunakan kenderaan pasukan untuk menghalang Tertuduh daripada melarikan diri. [52] Sebaliknya, Tertuduh mengambil tindakan drastik dalam ketidakpatuhannya kepada penguatkuasa yang menjalankan undang – undang dengan melanggar kereta pasukan tersebut ketika melarikan diri daripada sekatan pasukan polis dengan cara mengundurkan kenderaan yang dinaikinya. Perbuatan ini lantas mengakibatkan kerugian keapada harta kerajaan disebabkan perlanggaran antara kenderaan dipandunya dengan bahagian hadapan kenderaan pasukan polis [53] Tertuduh bukan sahaja merugikan harta benda kerajaan akibat perlanggaran tersebut, sebaliknya dengan sengaja Tertuduh telah meyebabkan risiko nyawa dan keselamatan keatas polis yang menjalankan tugas penguatkuasaan sewaktu Tertuduh cuba meloloskan diri, apabila Tertuduh bergerak ke hadapan dan dengan menggunakan kenderaan yang sedang dipandunya, Tertuduh meluru ke arah Pengadu yang mengetuai sekatan jalanraya tersebut [54] Tertuduh lantas diberikan amaran agar mematuhi arahan polis untuk memberhentikan kenderaan apabila Pengadu bertindak melepaskan 1 das tembakan ke udara, namun Tertuuh masih dengan sengaja tidak menghiraukan arahan polis tersebut. Sebaliknya tertuduh masih memandu laju S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 meluru kearah pengadu. Sekalipun, pengadu bertindak melepaskan tembakan sebanyak 1 kali lagi ke arah kereta dipandu Tertuduh dan mengenai tayar belakang kanan dalam usaha memastikan Tertuduh menghentikan kenderaan itu namun tertuduh masih tegar melarikan diri. [55] Sehingga tahap ini sekalipun, Tertuduh masih lagi gagal untuk mengambil serius arahan penguatkuasa untuk berhenti bagi tujuan pemeriksaan apabila Tertuduh dengan sengaja lari sewaktu kejar mengejar antara kereta tertuduh dan kereta pasukan polis. [56] Apatah lagi seusai episod kejar-mengejar itu, apabila sampai di Kampung Lubok Gong Rantau Panjang, Tertuduh telahpun dengan sengaja lari meloloskan diri daripada dijekar polis dengan bertindak keluar dari kereta dan terjun ke dalam sungai dan menyeberang melepasi negara jiran iaitu Thailand. [57] Tertuduh sekali lagi menunjukkan betapa sengajanya beliau enggan patuh kepada undang-undang apabila meloloskan diri selama lebih 2 bulan daripada tarikh kejadian jenayah yang dilakukannya apabila tertuduh hanya berjaya ditangkap pada 06/08/2022.” [61] Adalah amat jelas, bahawa halangan yang dilakukan dalam kes Hairul adalah jauh lebih serius di mana terdapat perlanggaran yang dilakukan oleh OKT untuk melarikan diri. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 [62] Sebelum Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman, Mahkamah telah mempertimbangkan tujuan hukuman yang dikenakan ke atas OKT. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Zulhiznie bin Zaini [2021] 12 MLJ 780 di Mahkamah Tinggi menjelaskan tujuan hukuman dikenakan seperti berikut: “…On the other hand, purposes of sentencing are the aims or the outcomes wished to be achieved and realised by the courts in line with the law. A sentence may have a sole or multiple purpose it wishes to achieve based on the circumstances of each case in particular. A magistrate whe determining this must ask oneself: ‘by imposing this sentence, what will the punishment achieve (within the ambits of the law)?’. [26] As it is well known the four classical purposes to be applied when considering the appropriate sentence are retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. Some heinous offences such as murder, culpable homicide, rape, robbery and those which involve violence retribution, deterrence and prevention would be the main focus of the punishment and not rehabilitation. [27] 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 offenders will be equipped with the right mind set and skills to live a life by making choices that are well reasoned and grounded. Thus, by achieving this, the criminal tendency of that person will be suppressed and society will be safeguarded against crimes as the said person would no longer be bent on committing crimes. S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [28] In addition, reparation which is a form of restorative justice is also a purpose of sentencing which has shown much emergence recently particularly in the criminal justice systems of western nations. Reparation is based on the notion demanding that a criminal make amends to victims by countervailing the wrong that they have committed in order to correct their crimes. [63] Berdasarkan fakta kes ini, Mahkamah mendapati hukuman pemulihan lebih sesuai daripada pencegahan dengan mengambil kira tiada kekerasan digunakan oleh OKT dan OKT tidak melarikan diri dan wajar diberikan peluang untuk mengubah dan bukannya meletakkan OKT di penjara kerana hukuman penjara tidak memberikan manfaat kepada OKT yang tidak mempunyai tahap agresif atau kecenderungan menggunakan kekerasan. Mengikut kes seperti PP v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256, walaupun Mahkamah perlu mencapai keseimbangan dalam kepentingan awam dan juga kepentingan tertuduh. Mahkamah mendapati kepentingan awam tidak terjejas kerana OKT menerima hukuman atas perbuatan OKT dengan mengambil kira keseriusan kesalahan. [64] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Wai [1988] 3 MLJ 123 dan Public Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 di mana Mahkamah perlu mempertimbangkan fakta setiap kes. Juga di dalam kes Mohamed Jusoh bin Abdullah and another v Public Prosecutor [1947] 1 MLJ 130, terdapat pelbagai faktor mitigasi yang perlu dipertimbangkan S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 seperti latar belakang, karakter tertuduh sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman dan bukan hanya melihat hukuman maxima. [65] Berdasarkan fakta kes, kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT adalah bukan kesalahan serius dan tidak mendatangkan kerosakkan harta benda atau menyebabkan apa-apa kecederaan. Mahkamah mendapati hukuman berbentuk pemulihan adalah bersesuaian mengambil kira latar belakang OKT bukan seorang penjenayah yang tegar malah OKT mempunyai latar belakang yang baik. OKT tidak mempunyai kesalahan lampau dan amat wajar dipertimbangkan hukuman denda. [66] Pihak pendakwaan berkeras dengan hukuman penjara dengan merujuk kes Hairul (supra) adalah tidak sesuai diaplikasi dalam kes ini berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip kehakiman. Adalah dilihat dalam kes Hairul, Mahkamah telah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara setelah mengambil kira kelakuan OKT yang dengan sengaja menyebabkan kerosakan harta benda dan membahayakan nyawa. Namun dalam kes ini, halangan OKT adalah telah sekadar menyukar pengambilan spesimen dan telah diakui bahawa spesimen akhirnya berjaya diambil dan tidak menyebabkan kerugian atau kecederaan kepada mana-mana pihak. [67] Kesalahan di bawah seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukkan hukuman penjara boleh sampai dua tahun atau denda boleh sehingga RM10,000 atau kedua-duanya. Mahkamah mengenakan hukuman denda RM4000 setelah mengambil kira faktor ekonomi OKT dan kemampuan OKT. OKT mempunyai jawatan tinggi di syarikat Huawei namun telah ditahan kerja dan S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 tidak mempunyai pendapatan. OKT sedang bergantung kepada wang simpanan untuk menyara ahli keluarga. OKT telah mendapat pengajaran sewajarnya apabila OKT tidak lagi dapat bekerja di syarikat Huawei sejak OKT dituduh. Sungguhpun, OKT mengalami kesusahan ekonomi namun OKT masih mempunyai peluang pekerjaan yang baik dan masih berkemampuan untuk membayar denda yang dikenakan. [68] Untuk permohonan kos pendakwaan, Mahkamah mengenakan kos pendakwaan sebanayk RM1000 bagi 4 saksi pendakwaan telah hadir semasa peringkat pendakwaan dan juga SP4 dipanggil semula di peringkat pembelaan. OKT telah kembali ke China menyebabkan perbicaraan yang ditetapkan pada 11 dan 12 January 2023 terpaksa dilapangkan. Saksi pendakwaan telah hadir pada 3 April 2023 namun kes perbicaraan telah ditangguh atas alasan peguam tidak sihat. Kos diberikan di bawah peruntukkan seksyen 427 Kanun Keseksaan mengambil kira kos yang ditanggung akibat daripada penangguhan, tempoh masa perbicaraan dan kehadiran saksi ke Mahkamah. Pendakwa Raya: Sareeka A/P Balakrishnan Peguambela : Muhammad Amiraizat Bin Abdul Rani Disediakan oleh: Wong Chai Sia Majistret Mahkamah Kuala Lumpur S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 S/N iFXrjJ9piECrY0oLXlkXcA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2023-12-20T16:20:25+0800

Tika 2.6.0

PB-45A-82-12/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MUHAMMAD IRWAN BUNMA BIN ABDULLAH

Pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] - Elemen-elemen kesalahan – Sama ada versi pembelaan mengenai kewujudan “Along” adalah benar atau rekaan semata-mata - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya membangkitkan keraguan munasabah berhubung dengan elemen milikan dan pengetahuan - Sama ada pihak pembelaan berjaya mematahkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta 234 atas imbangan kebarangkalian - Prinsip penghukuman – Budi Bicara Mahkamah dalam mengenakan hukuman gantung sampai mati atau pemenjaraan seumur hidup berserta sebatan.

20/12/2023

YA Puan Fathiyah Binti Idris

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=658ca017-10ce-46e4-b154-1e50b157acf7&Inline=true

Page 1 of 28 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI BUTTERWORTH DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG, MALAYSIA [PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: PB-45A-82-12/2021] ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA DAN MUHAMMAD IRWAN BUNMA BIN ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 700804-07-5049) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Muhammad Irwan Bunma bin Abdullah (OKT) telah dituduh di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 kerana mengedar dadah berbahaya Methamphetamine seberat 114.5 gram. Pertuduhan terhadapnya seperti berikut: - “Bahawa kamu pada 31.03.2017 jam lebih kurang 9:00 malam, bertempat di kawasan Pangsapuri Taman Mesra Indah, Bagan Lalang, 13400 Butterworth, dalam Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, dalam Negeri Pulau Pinang telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya, iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 114.5 gram. Oleh yang demikian 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”. 20/12/2023 12:50:46 PB-45A-82-12/2021 Kand. 58 S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 28 [2] OKT tidak mengaku salah dan perbicaraan penuh telah dijalankan, di akhir perbicaraan saya memutuskan OKT bersalah dan disabitkan kesalahannya atas pertuduhan tersebut. Setelah mendengar mitigasi yang disampaikan oleh peguam bela OKT dan hujahan pemberatan hukuman oleh pihak Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), saya menjatuhi ke atas OKT hukuman penjara seumur hidup bermula dari tarikh tangkapan (31.3.2017) dan sebatan rotan tidak dikenakan kerana OKT telah berumur melebihi 50 tahun (rujuk seksyen 289(c) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593]. [3] OKT yang terkilan dengan keputusan saya telah memfailkan notis rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan, Malaysia pada 18.11.2023 atas sabitan dan hukuman. Rayuan ini telah didaftarkan sebagai Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia, Rayuan Jenayah No: P-05(SH)-574- 11/2023. Ini adalah Alasan penghakiman saya terhadap keputusan yang telah diberikan pada 8.11.2023. Kes Pendakwaan [4] Pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil seramai sembilan (9) orang saksi bagi membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap OKT. Mereka ialah: - (i) SP1 – Noor Fadzlina binti Mohd Fauzi (Ahli Kimia) (ii) SP2 – Insp Tanapalan a/l Krishna (Pegawai Serbuan) (iii) SP3 – L/Kpl Mohd Amirulaini bin Mohd Basri (Jurufoto) (iv) SP4 – Cheng Chia Chyi (Agen Hartanah) (v) SP5 – Kpl Yumi Surihan bt Abu Hassan (Jurustor) (vi) SP6 – Kpl Mohd Zaidi bin Omar (Jurustor) S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 28 (vii) SP7 – Konst Mohd Aiman Shafiq bin Jemain (anggota serbuan yang membuat pemantauan di bahagian bawah blok pangsapuri) (viii) SP8 – Tay Wooi Shoong (Tuan punya rumah) (ix) SP9 – Insp Marafendi bin Marzuki (Pegawai Penyiasat) [5] Melalui keterangan saksi-saksi yang tersebut di atas, fakta kes yang dibentangkan oleh pihak pendakwaan dapatlah diringkaskan seperti berikut: Pada 31 Mac 2017 jam lebih kurang 9.00 malam, Inspektor Tanapalan (SP2) yang mengetuai sepasukan anggota polis telah sampai di Pangsapuri Indah, Jalan Mesra Indah, Taman Mesra, Mak Mandin, Pulau Pinang. Lokasi sasaran serbuan adalah di rumah nombor 10 tingkat 3 Pangsapuri Indah tersebut (tempat kejadian). [6] Setelah tiba di tempat kejadian, SP2 mengarahkan Konst Mohd Aiman Syafiq bin Jemain (SP7) dan dua anggota yang lain membuat kawalan di bahagian bawah pangsapuri sambil memantau dan melihat ke arah tingkat 3 dari bahagian bawah pangsapuri. SP2 bersama anggota yang lain kemudiannya naik ke tingkat 3 Pangsapuri tersebut dan pergi ke rumah beralamat No. 10. Setelah sampai di rumah nombor 10, SP2 bersama anggota telah mengetuk pintu grill dan pintu kayu beberapa kali tetapi tidak dibuka. [7] Seketika kemudian SP2 menerima panggilan telefon daripada SP7 yang menyatakan bahawa seorang lelaki (iaitu OKT) yang berada di tingkat 3 telah membuka tingkap bilik. SP2 lalu mengambil tindakan dengan memecah pintu hadapan dan memotong mangga (padlock) di pintu grill. Setelah dapat masuk ke dalam rumah nombor 10, SP2 nampak OKT sedang terjun keluar melalui tingkap bilik. SP2 terus pergi ke bahagian tingkap bilik dan pada masa yang S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 28 sama beliau mendengar bunyi sesuatu objek jatuh di atas permukaan bumbung zink. [8] Apabila SP2 sampai di tepi tingkap, beliau telah melihat ke arah bawah dan mendapati OKT telah jatuh di atas tanah. SP2 telah mengarahkan SP7 untuk mengawal OKT, kemudiannya SP2 bersama anggota yang lain turun ke bawah dan pergi ke tempat OKT jatuh. [9] SP7 dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa semasa beliau memantau di kawasan bawah Pangsapuri tersebut dan dalam masa yang sama beliau memerhati ke arah tingkat 3, beliau nampak tingkap dan pintu balkoni unit tersebut dalam keadaan tertutup dan lampu dalam keadaan dinyalakan. Tiba-tiba beliau nampak OKT membuka tingkap dan SP7 terus menelefon SP2 memaklumkan apa yang dilihatnya. [10] Setelah SP2 sampai di tempat OKT jatuh, beliau telah memperkenalkan diri sebagai pegawai polis dan OKT memberitahunya bahawa kaki kanannya sakit. SP2 telah menjalankan pemeriksaan badan ke atas OKT dan hasil pemeriksaan, SP2 telah menjumpai: - (i) Satu (1) beg pouch berzip jenama ‘Samsung Galaxy S’ berwarna biru gelap (ekshibit P22) yang terselit pada tali pinggang warna coklat (P24) pada seluar jeans (P23) yang sedang dipakai OKT. [11] Pemeriksaan di dalam beg pouch (P22) telah menjumpai: - (i) Satu (1) paket plastik (P20) berisi satu peket plastik yang mengandungi bahan disyaki syabu (P20A); dan S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 28 (ii) Satu (1) paket plastik (P21) berisi 2 paket plastik masing- masing berisi bahan disyaki Syabu (P21A dan P21B). [12] OKT kemudiannya dibawa naik ke tingkat 3 dan dibawa masuk ke dalam rumah nombor 10. Pemeriksaan lanjut telah dijalankan di dalam rumah tersebut dan telah menjumpai barang-barang berikut:- (i) Satu (1) alat penimbang digital; (ii) Paket-paket plastik kosong; (iii) Satu (1) botol kaca yang telah diubah suai sebagai satu alat yang digunakan untuk menghisap dadah; (iv) Satu (1) pemetik api; (v) Satu (1) kemeja T berwarna hitam yang tertulis perkataan “Rusty”; (vi) Satu (1) seluar jeans jenama “Uniqlo” berwarna biru; (vii) Satu (1) helai tuala; (viii) Sepucuk surat jaminan yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Bukit Mertajam; dan (ix) Satu (1) kad pengenalan OKT. [13] SP2 telah merampas semua barang kes, selanjutnya OKT dan semua barang rampasan telah dibawa balik ke IPD Seberang Perai Utara. SP2 telah mengarahkan SP7 untuk menyediakan borang bongkar (ekshibit P6). SP2 dan OKT telah menurunkan tandatangan masing-masing pada borang bongkar tersebut. S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 28 [14] SP2 telah membuat laporan polis berkaitan rampasan dadah dan tangkapan sebagaimana Mak Mandin Repot No. 1110/17 (ekshibit P7). SP2 juga telah membuat penandaan barang kes dan menimbang bahan yang disyaki Syabu dan mendapati berat kasarnya adalah 208 gram. [15] Pada 01.4.2017 jam 3.00 am, SP2 telah menyerahkan barang kes berserta borang serah menyerah (ekshibit P8) kepada Pegawai Penyiasat (SP9). SP2 dan SP9 telah menurunkan tandatangan masing-masing pada borang serah menyerah. [16] Pada 4.4.2017, SP9 telah menghantar barang kes ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, Pulau Pinang dan telah diserahkan kepada Ahli Kimia, Cik Noor Fadzlina binti Mohd Fauzi (SP1). [17] SP1 telah menjalankan analisis ke atas barang kes yang diterima dan hasil analisis, SP1 mengesahkan barang kes tersebut mengandungi Methamphetamine seberat 114.5 gram. Methamphetamine disenaraikan di bawah Senarai Pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. [18] SP1 telah menyediakan laporan kimia (ekshibit P5) dan beliau telah mengembalikan semua barang kes yang telah dianalisis bersama dengan ekshibit P5 kepada SP9 pada 13 Julai 2017. Beban pembuktian di akhir kes pendakwaan [19] Adalah merupakan prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa beban pembuktian di akhir kes pendakwaan terletak di pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan satu kes prima facie di bawah seksyen 180 (1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) sebelum tertuduh S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 28 dipanggil membela diri bagi menjawab pertuduhan yang dihadapinya. [20] Seksyen 180 KTJ memperuntukkan seperti berikut: - Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution (1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused. (2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal. (3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged the Court shall call upon the accused to enter on his defence. (4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction. [21] Prinsip ini juga telah diputuskan dalam banyak kes-kes duluan, dan Mahkamah ini sekadar merujuk kepada dua kes yang seringkali dirujuk iaitu kes Public Prosecutor v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457; [2005] 6 MLJ 393, Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui Gopal Sri Ram HMP menyatakan: - "[8] 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 S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 28 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 '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; (iii) after the defence is called, the accused elects to remain silent, then convict; (iv) after defence is called, the accused elects to give evidence, then go through the steps set out in Mat v. Public Prosecutor [1963] 1 LNS 82; [1963] MLJ 263. [22] Selanjutnya Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Magendran Mohan v. Public Prosecutor [2011] 1 CLJ 805; [2011] 6 MLJ 1, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PMR telah menyatakan: - "[44] 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 scrutinised 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." [23] Berpandukan peruntukan undang-undang dan nas-nas duluan yang tersebut di atas, maka adalah menjadi tanggungjawab Mahkamah ini di akhir kes pendakwaan, untuk meneliti dan menilai keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan secara maksimum bagi menentukan sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 28 membuktikan satu kes prima facie selaras dengan seksyen 180 (1) KTJ. Analisis dan dapatan Mahkamah di akhir kes Pendakwaan [24] Elemen-elemen kesalahan yang mesti dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan bagi pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 adalah: (i) Bahawa dadah jenis Methamphetamine seberat 114.5 gram sepertimana dalam pertuduhan merupakan dadah berbahaya yang tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama Akta 234; (ii) Bahawa OKT mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan mengenai dadah tersebut; dan (iii) OKT mengedar dadah tersebut pada masa, tarikh dan tempat tersebut. Elemen (i): Bahawa dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 114.5 gram sepertimana dalam pertuduhan dan tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama Akta 234 [25] Untuk membuktikan elemen ini, pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan keterangan melalui SP1. Keterangan SP1 telah mengesahkan bahawa beliau ialah seorang Ahli Kimia yang berkhidmat dalam perkhidmatan kerajaan Malaysia di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia Cawangan Pulau Pinang. [26] SP1 telah menjalankan analisis ke atas barang kes yang diterima dan hasil analisis mendapati bahan yang dianalisis mengandungi Methamphetamine seberat 114.5 gram. SP1 telah menyediakan Laporan Kimia (P5) untuk membuktikan hasil analisis beliau. SP1 S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 28 juga mengesahkan bahawa Methamphetamine adalah dadah berbahaya yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. [27] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak pembelaan tidak mencabar kelayakan dan kepakaran SP1 di dalam menjalankan analisis kimia terhadap barang kes dadah tersebut. Berdasarkan kelulusan, pengalaman dan kepakaran SP1, Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa SP1 merupakan seorang pakar menurut seksyen 45 Akta Keterangan 1950 dan Mahkamah ini menerima keterangan beliau sebagai keterangan pakar yang berkelayakan untuk menjalankan analisis kimia berkaitan dengan identiti dan kuantiti dadah tersebut. [28] Mahkamah ini memutuskan sedemikian dengan berpandukan keputusan dalam kes yang seringkali dirujuk dan dijadikan panduan iaitu kes Khoo Hii Chiang v. PP [1994] 2 CLJ 151 dan kes Chu Tak Fai v. Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 CLJ 931; [2007] 1 MLJ 201 yang menggariskan bagaimana keterangan Ahli Kimia seharusnya diterima oleh Mahkamah. Rantaian keterangan [29] Mahkamah ini juga telah meneliti keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan berkaitan pengendalian barang kes dadah tersebut dan mendapati tiada keraguan mengenai identiti dadah tersebut. [30] Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa rantaian keterangan mengenai pengendalian barang kes adalah utuh dan kukuh. Tidak terdapat kelompangan dari segi pengendalian barang kes bermula dari barang kes dirampas oleh S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 28 SP2 kemudian diserahkan kepada SP9 dan sehinggalah diserahkan kepada SP1 untuk dianalisis. [31] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati SP2 telah membuat penandaan pada barang kes yang dirampas dan beliau camkan penandaan yang telah dibuat, iaitu beliau menurunkan tandatangan ringkas dan mencatatkan tarikh “1.4.2017”. SP2 juga camkan barang kes melalui gambar-gambar iaitu seperti di P17 (1 – 20). [32] SP1 juga telah camkan barang kes melalui tampalan sticker Jabatan Kimia Malaysia dengan nombor makmal 17-FR-P-02159 pada barang kes yang diterima. Tiada bukti bahawa barang kes telah dikacau ganggu dengan apa-apa cara sebelum atau selepas analisis dijalankan oleh SP1. [33] Semasa SP1 memberi keterangan, SP1 telah membuka sampul barang kes (P1) yang bermeterai Jabatan Kimia dengan cara menggunting sampul barang kes tersebut. Beliau mengesahkan bahawa sampul barang kes dalam keadaan baik seperti mana ianya diserahkan kembali kepada SP9. [34] Selanjutnya Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa dadah yang dianalisis oleh SP1 adalah dadah yang dirampas oleh SP2 dan diserahkan oleh SP2 kepada SP9. Kemudiannya dadah yang sama dihantar oleh SP9 kepada SP1 untuk dianalisis dan dadah yang sama dikemukakan di Mahkamah semasa perbicaraan. Dalam memutuskan sedemikian, Mahkamah ini berpandukan keputusan di dalam kes Hasbala Mohd Sarong v. PP [2013] 6 CLJ 945 MP dan Gunalan Ramachandran v. PP [2004] 4 CLJ 551. [35] Oleh itu Mahkamah mendapati rantaian keterangan mengenai pengendalian barang kes tidak terputus dan tiada sebarang kelompangan dalam kes pendakwaan. Mahkamah berpuas hati S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 28 bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa dadah yang dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 114.5 gram adalah dadah berbahaya yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Elemen Kedua: Bahawa OKT mempunyai milikan dan pengetahuan mengenai dadah tersebut [36] Untuk membuktikan elemen kedua ini, terdapat dua unsur utama yang perlu dibuktikan, iaitu elemen milikan fizikal yang merujuk kepada jagaan dan kawalan fizikal ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut dan elemen mental iaitu pengetahuan OKT mengenai dadah tersebut. [37] Dalam isu ini Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada keputusan dalam kes yang tersohor iaitu kes Chan Pean Leon v. PP [1956] 1 LNS 17; [1956] 22 MLJ 237 di mukasurat 239, Hakim Thomson telah menjelaskan tentang kedua-dua unsur tersebut 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.”. [38] Berpandukan kepada otoriti yang tersebut di atas, maka untuk membuktikan seseorang itu mempunyai “milikan”, keterangan yang dikemukakan hendaklah menunjukkan bahawa seseorang itu mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan ke atas sesuatu barang dan dia bebas berurusan atau mengendalikan barang tersebut sepenuhnya S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 28 tanpa penglibatan orang lain (power of disposal to the exclusion of others) dan dia mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas barang tersebut. [39] Di hadapan Mahkamah ini, keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh saksi-saksi pendakwaan khususnya SP2 dan SP7 menunjukkan bahawa ketika OKT ditahan, ada dalam milikan OKT satu pouch beg berzip Samsung Galaxy S (P22) yang di dalamnya mengandungi dadah berbahaya tersebut. Beg pouch tersebut terselit di tali pinggang pada seluar jeans yang dipakai oleh OKT. [40] Pihak pembelaan di dalam hujahannya menyatakan bahawa semasa OKT ditahan, tiada beg pouch Samsung tersebut dan tiada dadah yang dijumpai dan dirampas daripada OKT. Selanjutnya pembelaan berhujah bahawa keterangan SP2 dan SP7 mengenai penemuan beg pouch tersebut adalah diragui dan sukar dipercayai. Pihak pembelaan juga meragui kredibiliti kesemua saksi-saksi pendakwaan. [41] Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan SP2 secara penelitian yang maksimum. SP2 ialah seorang pegawai kanan polis yang telah mengetuai serbuan dalam kes ini. Serbuan tersebut dijalankan berdasarkan maklumat yang diterima berkaitan kegiatan pengedaran dadah di tempat kejadian. [42] SP2 mengesahkan bahawa beliau tidak mengenali OKT sebelum kejadian serbuan tersebut dan malam tersebut merupakan kali pertama SP2 berjumpa dan melihat OKT. SP2 menyatakan bahawa hasil pemeriksaan badan ke atas OKT telah menjumpai satu (1) beg berzip jenama “Samsung Galaxy S” warna biru gelap yang diselit di tali pinggang warna coklat pada seluar jeans yang dipakai oleh OKT pada masa tersebut. Dengan disaksikan oleh OKT, SP2 telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas beg pouch tersebut dan S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 28 menjumpai paket-paket plastik lutsinar yang mengandungi bahan disyaki dadah Syabu. [43] Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa SP2 menyimpan dendam atau hendak menganiaya OKT dalam kes ini. SP2 hanya melaksanakan tugasnya sebagai Pegawai Polis yang bertugas di Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik, Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang. [44] Mahkamah mendapati keterangan SP2 adalah berkaitan penglibatan dan peranannya dalam kes ini dan tiada sebarang tokok tambah yang boleh memprejudiskan pihak OKT. Mahkamah ini sedar bahawa terdapat beberapa perkara dalam keterangan SP2 yang tidak dapat dipastikan oleh SP7. Tetapi ini tidak bermakna SP2 atau SP7 mereka-reka cerita. [45] Keterangan SP2 dan SP7 mengenai tindakan OKT yang terjun dari tingkap dan penemuan beg pouch Samsung yang terselit di tali pinggang yang dipakai oleh OKT jelas menunjukkan bahawa keterangan mereka di Mahkamah adalah berkenaan apa yang sebenarnya mereka lihat pada masa kejadian tersebut. Tidak ada sebab untuk SP2 dan SP7 menokok tambah atau mereka-reka cerita. [46] Berdasarkan soalan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pembelaan kepada SP7 semasa pemeriksaan balas, Mahkamah mendapati soalan-soalan tersebut seolah-olah pihak pembelaan mengakui tentang kewujudan beg pouch Samsung (ekshibit P22) dan isi kandungannya. Keterangan SP7 dipetik seperti berikut: - PB: Semasa buat pemeriksaan, SP2 merampas beg pouch Samsung yang dipakai oleh OKT. S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 15 of 28 SP7: Ya PB: Dari beg itu dirampas paket-paket plastik dari beg pouch Samsung dan ditunjuk kepada OKT. SP7: Ya, Paket-paket plastik berisi dadah. PB: Beg pouch dirampas di mana? SP7: Di sebelah kiri badan OKT PB: Di selit atau diikat pada tali pinggang? SP7: Diselit. [47] Soalan-soalan yang berikutnya menunjukkan pihak pembelaan cuba menafikan kewujudan beg pouch Samsung dan dadah yang dijumpai di dalamnya. Cadangan pihak pembelaan kepada SP7 seperti berikut: S: Put – semasa serbuan dilakukan, beg pouch Samsung berserta dengan paket-paket plastik tak pernah di rampas dari OKT J; Tak setuju S: Put – beg pouch tidak dirampas dari OKT, dan tidak dipakai oleh OKT. J: Tak setuju S: Put – SP2 ambil keluar paket-paket plastik dari bilik dia dan tunjuk kepada OKT sambil kata “ini milik kamu kah” J: Tak setuju [48] Mahkamah mendapati keterangan SP7 di dalam pemeriksaan utama dan pemeriksaan balas adalah konsisten, iaitu beg pouch Samsung tersebut dijumpai terselit pada tali pinggang di seluar jeans yang dipakai oleh OKT. Sebaliknya melalui soalan-soalan pihak pembelaan kepada SP7 menunjukkan pihak pembelaan tidak S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 16 of 28 mempunyai pendirian yang kukuh dalam mengemukakan pembelaannya. [49] Kesimpulan yang dapat digarap daripada keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan dan berpandukan nas-nas duluan seperti yang dirujuk di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat dan memutuskan bahawa OKT dalam konteks kes ini mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai di dalam beg pouch Samsung tersebut. [50] Keadaan beg pouch semasa dijumpai adalah terselit di tali pinggang di seluar jeans yang dipakai oleh OKT. Ini menunjukkan bahawa OKT sentiasa mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan terhadap beg pouch Samsung serta dadah yang berada di dalamnya dan OKT boleh menyimpan atau melupuskannya seperti yang diinginkan. Ini membuktikan bahawa OKT memiliki dadah tersebut pada masa tangkapan dilakukan terhadapnya. [51] Setelah Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa OKT mempunyai milikan ke atas dadah tersebut, maka adakah boleh disimpulkan bahawa OKT mempunyai pengetahuan atas dadah tersebut? Dalam isu ini Mahkamah berpandukan kepada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan yang disampaikan oleh Ariffin Zakaria HMP (pada ketika itu) di dalam kes PP v. Abdul Rahman Akif [2007] 4 CLJ 337; [2007] 1 MLRA 568, di mana rujukan dibuat kepada keputusan Mahkamah Atasan Singapura dan England yang memutuskan isu niat untuk pemilikan seperti berikut: - “[18] In Ramis a/l Muniandy v. Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR 534, the Singapore Court of Appeal again propounded on the question of knowledge necessary to establish possession and at p. 541 states: Knowledge of drugs; The starting point in the consideration of this issue was that we had already concluded that the drugs were already on Ramis’s motorcycles when he S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 17 of 28 entered the vicinity and that he had physical control of the drugs. In the absence of any reasonable explanation by Ramis, there facts were sufficient to lead to a strong inference that Ramis knew that the bag found on his motorcycle contained drugs. In Tan Ah Tee (supra), Wee Ching Jin CJ, delivering the judgement of the court, said [1978 - 1979] SLR 211 at 217-218 [1980] 1 MLJ 49 at pg 52) Even if there were no statutory presumptions available to the prosecution, once the prosecution had proved the fact of physical control or possession of the plastic bag and the circumstances in which this was acquired by and remained with the second appellant, the trial judges would be justified in finding that she had possession of the contents of the plastic bag within the meaning of the Act unless she gave an explanation of the physical fact which the trial judges accepted or which raised a doubt in their minds that she had possession of the contents within the meaning of the Act.” [52] Di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, berdasarkan keterangan SP2 dan SP7 jelas menunjukkan bahawa OKT cuba melarikan diri daripada pihak polis dengan terjun melalui tingkap bilik, akibatnya OKT telah jatuh ke tanah dan mengalami kecederaan pada kaki kanannya. [53] Tingkah laku OKT yang nekad terjun dari tingkap semasa serbuan tanpa memikirkan keselamatan dirinya jelas menunjukkan bahawa OKT mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa di dalam beg pouch Samsung yang terselit di tali pinggang seluar yang dipakainya mengandungi dadah berbahaya. [54] Justeru, Mahkamah ini berpuas hati berdasarkan keterangan terus khususnya keterangan SP2 dan SP7 dan kedudukan dadah yang dijumpai sangat dekat/rapat dengan OKT iaitu di badan OKT dan keadaan paket-paket plastik lutsinar yang menampakkan isi S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 18 of 28 kandungan dadah Syabu (Methamphetamine) jelas membuktikan bahawa OKT mempunyai pemilikan sebenar ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut secara berasingan dan bebas dari peruntukan anggapan milikan di bawah seksyen 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Elemen ketiga: sama ada OKT mengedar dadah-dadah tersebut [55] Mengenai elemen ketiga ini, Mahkamah ini merujuk dan berpandukan kepada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Abdullah Atan v. PP [2020] 9 CLJ 151, di mana YAA Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat (Ketua Hakim Negara) menyatakan bahawa setelah elemen pemilikan berjaya dibuktikan secara berasingan dan bebas dari peruntukan anggapan milikan di bawah sek.37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, maka Mahkamah berhak membuat dapatan bahawa satu kes prima facie berkaitan pengedaran dibuktikan di bawah seksyen 180(4) KTJ dengan membangkitkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. [56] Di dalam kes ini, berdasarkan berat dadah Methamphetamine yang besar (114.5 gram), satu anggapan boleh dibuat bahawa dadah tersebut adalah untuk tujuan pengedaran dan adalah tidak munasabah untuk kegunaan OKT sendiri (self consumption). [57] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie dan OKT dipanggil untuk membela diri atas Pertuduhan. S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 19 of 28 Kes Pembelaan [58] Sebaik dipanggil membela diri, Mahkamah telah menerangkan kepada OKT dengan tiga pilihan untuk dia memberi keterangan dan OKT memilih untuk memberi keterangan secara bersumpah. Pihak pembelaan hanya mengemukakan OKT sebagai saksi pembelaan (SD1) dan tiada saksi pembelaan yang lain dipanggil. [59] Naratif pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh OKT adalah seperti berikut: Pada 31.3.2017 jam 9 pm OKT berada di dalam bilik air dalam bilik utama rumah tersebut. Apabila OKT keluar dari bilik air, dia mendengar bunyi ketukan bertalu-talu di pintu kayu hadapan rumah dan dia mendengar bunyi pintu grill sedang dipecahkan. OKT pergi ke hadapan pintu kayu dan tidak mendengar apa-apa jeritan supaya pintu dibuka. OKT tidak tahu siapa yang mengetuk pintu, OKT hanya terfikir bahawa Along yang datang ke rumahnya untuk menuntut hutang. Bagi menyelamatkan diri dari tindakan Along, OKT telah masuk ke dalam bilik dan hendak keluar melalui tingkap jenis sliding di bilik tersebut. OKT telah tergelincir lalu jatuh ke atas bumbung dan terus jatuh ke bawah. Pada masa melarikan diri, OKT hanya memakai seluar jeans tanpa memakai tali pinggang. [60] Semasa jatuh, kaki kanan OKT telah patah dan menyebabkan OKT tidak dapat berdiri, dan dia hanya terbaring di tempat dia jatuh. Kemudian datang dua orang anggota polis dan melakukan pemeriksaan badan ke atas OKT dan tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. Kemudiannya OKT dibawa naik ke rumahnya dan tiada apa-apa barang salah dirampas dari dalam rumah tersebut. [61] OKT hanya melihat barang kes apabila SP2 menunjukkan kepadanya semasa berada di pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 20 of 28 Narkotik, Seberang Perai Utara. OKT juga menafikan menandatangani borang bongkar. [62] OKT menyatakan dia meminjam wang dari Along untuk membayar wang ikat jamin Mohd Roshdi dan dia menerima ugutan daripada Along. [63] OKT mendakwa dia telah memberitahu SP9 bahawa dia meminjam wang Along dan SP9 mengugut nya untuk mengaku terhadap barang kes, kerana ada CCTV yang menunjukkan OKT membuang barang kes dari tingkap rumah. [64] OKT juga menyatakan bahawa kali pertama dia melihat barang kes iaitu beg pouch Samsung semasa perbicaraan di Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang pada tahun 2018. Penilaian keterangan tertuduh [65] Setelah meneliti keterangan OKT secara mendalam, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa keterangan OKT adalah penafian semata- mata. Pembelaan OKT bahawa dia menyangkakan Along yang datang ke rumah untuk mengutip hutang adalah tidak munasabah. Ini kerana berdasarkan keterangan SP2, beliau telah mengetuk pintu beberapa kali dan menjerit “polis” untuk memperkenalkan diri. Tetapi pintu tidak dibuka, walaupun pada masa tersebut OKT berada di dalam rumah tersebut. [66] Maka inferens yang boleh dibuat ialah OKT tahu kehadiran polis dan OKT melarikan diri bersama barang kes untuk mengelakkan dirinya ditahan di dalam rumah tersebut bersama barang kes. [67] Selanjutnya Mahkamah berpendapat dakwaan OKT bahawa semasa dia ditahan, tiada beg pouch Samsung dijumpai pada S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 21 of 28 badannya dan tiada apa-apa barang salah bersamanya adalah penafian semata-mata. Keterangan SP2 dan SP7 adalah jelas menceritakan bagaimana OKT terjun dari tingkap bilik dan jatuh ke bawah iaitu di atas tanah. OKT mengalami kecederaan pada kakinya dan tidak boleh bangun, OKT hanya terbaring. [68] Semasa pemeriksaan dilakukan ke atas OKT, telah dijumpai 1 beg pouch berzip jenama ‘Samsung Galaxy S’ (ekshibit P22) yang terselit pada tali pinggang warna coklat (ekshibit P24) pada seluar jeans (ekshibit P23) yang sedang dipakai oleh OKT. Pemeriksaan dalam beg tersebut telah menjumpai paket-paket plastik lutsinar yang mengandungi bahan disyaki Syabu. [69] Mahkamah ini telah menerima keterangan SP2 dan SP7 semasa membincangkan elemen pemilikan, di mana Mahkamah ini menerima versi pendakwaan dalam keterangan SP2 dan SP7 bahawa OKT terjun dari tingkap di tingkat 3 dan jatuh ke tanah, serta penemuan barang kes dadah seperti yang dipertuduhkan. [70] Mahkamah ini mendapati pihak pembelaan telah gagal menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah berkaitan pemilikan dadah berbahaya. Pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan melampaui keraguan yang munasabah bahawa OKT memiliki dadah berbahaya secara langsung. Mahkamah pada peringkat ini, menolak pembelaan OKT bahawa dadah tersebut tidak dijumpai dalam beg pouch Samsung tersebut. [71] Mahkamah ini juga telah memberi pertimbangan terhadap pembelaan OKT bahawa dia melarikan diri dari Along kerana bimbang Along akan mencederakannya sehingga menyebabkan kematian. Menurut OKT, dia ada memberitahu SP9 mengenai S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 22 of 28 Along. Di dalam keterangan SP9, beliau menafikan dakwaan OKT yang tersebut. [72] Semasa OKT disoal balas, dia tidak dapat memberi butiran mengenai Along dan dia juga tidak mengemukakan apa-apa bukti melalui SP9 mengenai kewujudan Along untuk menunjukkan bahawa OKT telah memberitahu mengenai Along kepada SP9. [73] Menurut keterangan SP9, semasa pemeriksaan semula bahawa beliau tahu mengenai Along hanyalah semasa perbicaraan kes. Maka adalah munasabah untuk SP9 tidak menjalankan apa-apa siasatan berkaitan Along kerana perkara ini baru timbul semasa SP9 memberi keterangan iaitu pada tahun 2023. [74] Oleh itu, keterangan pembelaan mengenai kewujudan Along dalam kes ini bukanlah satu pembelaan yang dapat menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan, malahan ianya adalah satu rekaan semata-mata. [75] Mahkamah ini selanjutnya menimbangkan pembelaan OKT berkaitan anggapan pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Di dalam keterangannya tiada secebis keterangan yang memberikan penjelasan apakah tujuan dadah tersebut berada dalam milikannya, bagi membolehkan pembelaan mematahkan anggapan pengedaran tersebut. [76] Berdasarkan seksyen 37(da) ini, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa OKT memiliki dadah tersebut adalah bagi tujuan pengedaran dadah berbahaya dan bukan untuk tujuan yang lain. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada keputusan yang disampaikan oleh Abdul Rahman Sebli HMR (pada ketika itu) di dalam kes Ogbugo Chioma Martha V. PP (2019) 1 LNS 491 seperti berikut: - S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 23 of 28 “[36] The question is whether the appellant had adduced any evidence to discharge her evidential burden of showing that the drug was not for the purpose of trafficking. There was none, and in the absence of evidence that the drug was for her own consumption, which is a defence to a trafficking charge as shown in Lorraine Phylis Cohen & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1989] 1 CLJ Rep 84; [1989] 2 CLJ 131; [1989] 2 MLJ 288, or for any purpose other than trafficking, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that the appellant was carrying the drug for the purpose of trafficking.” [77] Akhirnya Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa atas imbangan kebarangkalian OKT telah gagal mematahkan anggapan undang- undang di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Selanjutnya Mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan melampaui keraguan yang munasabah bahawa OKT memiliki dadah berbahaya Methamphetamine seberat 114.5 gram untuk tujuan pengedaran dadah berbahaya selaras dengan maksud seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Hukuman [78] Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 [Akta 846] yang mula berkuat kuasa pada 4.7.2023 telah memberikan Mahkamah ini budi bicara yang sepenuhnya dalam menjatuhi hukuman ke atas OKT, iaitu sama ada mengenakan hukuman gantung sampai mati atau hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan sebatan tidak kurang dari 12 sebatan. [79] Mahkamah ini juga ingin merujuk kepada keputusan oleh Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes PP v. S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 24 of 28 Umapathi Ganesan [2023] 9 CLJ 625 dan memutuskan di muka surat 635 - "Taking those views into consideration, the role of a convicted accused in the spectrum of trafficking activities and the mitigating reasons for them must now be considered by the court in determining whether the passing of a death sentence is commensurate with the type of act of trafficking as defined under s. 2 of the DDA. That definition cannot now be taken as all- encompassing and one that fits all. In addition to that, the weight or volume of the dangerous drugs found in the possession of the convicted accused will be another key consideration. A distinction should now be made between cases where the amounts of dangerous drugs involved barely meets the minimum threshold for a presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the DDA and those that are greatly in excess of that minimum. An amount that barely meets the minimum threshold or thereabouts should not, in the absence of any heavy aggravating factor, prima facie justifies the death sentence. Thus, having considered all the possible aggravating and mitigating factors and keeping in mind the spirit and intent of the Act 846, in this court's view, the death sentence should only be reserved for exceptionally serious cases where the convicted accused: (i) served a major role in the act of trafficking (see Letitia Bosman (supra); Mohamad Fauzi Ridzwan & Anor v. PP [2006] 1 CLJ 478; [2006] 2 MLJ 15); (ii) trafficked in large amounts or quantity of dangerous drugs or greatly in excess of the minimum threshold for the presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the DDA (see: Ong Ah Chuan v. PP [1980] 1 LNS 181; [1981] 1 MLJ 64; Muhammad Lukman Mohamad v. PP [2021] 7 CLJ 524; S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 25 of 28 [2021] MLJU 1015; PP v. Saifulzainizam Mat Nasir v. PP [2021] 1 LNS 1074; [2021] 5 MLJ 265); (iii) was caught in the act of processing or manufacturing dangerous drugs (see: Chan Wei Loon v. PP & another Appeal [2021] 6 CLJ 623; [2021] 4 MLJ 660); (iv) trafficked dangerous drugs that were found individually packed in large amounts, that raises the inference they were meant for selling or distribution (see: PP v. Mohd Fazelan Md Khuzeh [2015] 9 CLJ 221; [2015] 6 MLJ 688); (v) was caught in the act of selling large amounts of dangerous drugs; (vi) had in his possession large quantity of paraphernalia for the processing, manufacturing or administration of dangerous drugs (see: Saifulnizam Mat Nasir (supra); (vii) was caught giving instructions to others, in particular minors, in the act of processing, manufacturing, selling or distributing dangerous drugs; (viii) used sophisticated methods to conceal, hide or transport dangerous drugs (see: Wjchai Onprom v. PP [2006] 3 CLJ 724; [2006] 5 MLJ 415; Bebou Akpo Bouraima lwn. PP [2017] 1 LNS 511; [2017] MLJU 477); (ix) trafficked in large quantities of chemically processed dangerous drugs or designer drugs (see: Khairil Anwar Abdul Rahim (supra); Obiequo Emmanuel Chukwunanu v. PP [2018] 1 LNS 1089; [2018] MLRHU 849); (x) had in his possession illegal arms or weapons when he was caught; (xi) took life-threatening measures to resist arrest; (xii) had multiple prior convictions; and/or S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 26 of 28 (xiii) acted in cohorts with corrupt members of any enforcement agency. Those factors are merely examples of exceptional aggravating factors that may, in this court's view, justify the death sentence. It would be up to the court to deliberate on and weigh them against all mitigating factors guided by established laws on sentencing (see: Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. PP [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83) PP v. Ramakrishnan Subramaniam & Ors [2012] 9 CLJ 443; [2013] 2 MLJ 549; PP v. Aris Mohd Nor [2019] 1 LNS 1555;PP v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ; and PP v. Shahrul Azuwan Adanan & Anor[2013] 2 CLJ 686; [2013] 8 MLJ 70) and to find if any one of them or a combination of any number of those factors justify the court's exercise of discretion to pass the death sentence." [80] Di dalam kes ini, semasa OKT ditangkap, dia tidak bertindak secara ganas atau menggunakan senjata atau membahayakan atau mencederakan mana-mana anggota polis, sebaliknya tindakan OKT yang terjun ke bawah dari tingkap di tingkat 3 telah menyebabkan kepatahan kakinya sendiri. Oleh itu, Mahkamah percaya tiada faktor pemberatan yang mewajarkan OKT dihukum gantung sampai mati. Kesimpulan [81] Berdasarkan perbincangan yang dikemukakan di atas, Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa OKT bersalah dan disabitkan kesalahannya atas pertuduhan yang dihadapinya seperti dinyatakan di atas. S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 27 of 28 [82] Setelah mempertimbangkan fakta kes, rayuan mitigasi OKT dan hujahan pemberatan hukuman oleh pihak pendakwaan serta merujuk kes-kes seperti yang dinyatakan di atas, maka Mahkamah ini memutuskan OKT dijatuhi hukuman penjara seumur hidup dan tiada sebatan rotan diperintahkan kerana OKT telah berumur 53 tahun pada masa hukuman dijatuhi ke atasnya. [83] Selanjutnya diperintahkan bahawa semua barang kes dadah diserahkan kepada pihak pendakwaan/polis untuk simpanan selamat sehingga selesai rayuan. Bertarikh: 20 Disember 2023. ……………………. (FATHIYAH BINTI IDRIS) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Butterworth Pulau Pinang S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 28 of 28 PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi pihak pendakwaan: Muna binti Mohamed Jaafar Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pulau Pinang Bagi pihak pembelaan: Mima Falaq bin Mohd Amin Firdaus Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara Mima Falaq Donna & Co. Pulau Pinang S/N F6CMZc4Q5EaxVB5QsVes9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-25-44-06/2022

PEMOHON 1. ) AHMAD DUSUKI BIN ABD RANI 2. ) MOHAMMAD NAZMI BIN ABDUL KARIM RESPONDEN 1. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (MAIS) 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Permohonan semakan kehakiman terhadap keputusan responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua melalui surat bertarikh 10 Mac 2022 yang memutuskan untuk menarik balik tauliah mengajar yang dikeluarkan kepada pemohon pertama berkuat kuasa 3 Mac 2022 - Peraturan-Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008 - Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003

20/12/2023

YA Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=87c2cf73-83e5-4a14-9487-72a621469b67&Inline=true

1 BA-25-44-06/2022 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-44-06/2022 Dalam perkara Artikel 5, 8, 10, 11, 74, 75 dan 121 Perlembagaan Persekutuan; Dan Dalam perkara Bahagian Seksyen 3, 4 dan 118 Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003; Dan Dalam perkara Perenggan 8, 10, 17, 18 dan 21 Peraturan-Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008; Dan Dalam perkara perkara surat-surat bertarikh 10.3.2022 rujukan MAIS/SPK/BPT/01/012/01/28 Jilid 9(07) dan MAIS/SPK/BPT/01/012/01/28 Jilid 8(06); Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53 dan Aturan 92 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan Perenggan 1, Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. 20/12/2023 15:11:28 BA-25-44-06/2022 Kand. 47 S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BA-25-44-06/2022 ANTARA 1. AHMAD DASUKI BIN ABD RANI (No. K/P: 760207-06-5031) 2. MOHAMMAD NAZMI BIN ABDUL KARIM (No. K/P: 740331-14-5145) …PEMOHON-PEMOHON DAN 1. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR 2. JAWATANKUASA TAULIAH NEGERI SELANGOR 3. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Ini merupakan satu permohonan semakan kehakiman oleh pemohon pertama, Ahmad Dasuki bin Abd Rani terhadap keputusan responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua melalui surat bertarikh 10 Mac 2022 yang memutuskan untuk menarik balik tauliah mengajar yang dikeluarkan kepada pemohon pertama berkuat kuasa 3 Mac 2022. [2] Pada 11 Ogos 2022, pemohon kedua telah menerima surat daripada responden pertama yang menyatakan bahawa rayuan pemohon kedua diterima dan tauliah kepada pemohon kedua kekal S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 BA-25-44-06/2022 berkuatkuasa sehingga ianya tamat pada 30 Jun 2024 melainkan jika tauliah tersebut digantung atau ditamatkan dengan lebih awal. [3] Oleh itu, permohonan semakan kehakiman ini hanya melibatkan pemohon pertama. [4] Mahkamah telah membenarkan permohonan semakan kehakiman pemohon pertama ini. Pemohon pertama telah merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap sebahagian daripada keputusan mahkamah ini. [5] Ini merupakan alasan penghakiman bagi permohonan semakan kehakiman ini. Relief yang dipohon [6] Relief yang dipohon dalam permohonan semakan kehakiman ini adalah seperti berikut: “(a) Satu deklarasi bahawa keputusan responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua yang disampaikan kepada pemohon pertama dan pemohon kedua melalui surat bertarikh 10.3.2022 yang bernombor rujukan masing-masing MAIS/SPK/BPT/01/012/01/28 Jilid 9(07) dan MAIS/SPK/BPT/01/012/01/28 Jilid 8(06) yang telah memutuskan untuk menarik balik tauliah mengajar yang dikeluarkan kepada pemohon pertama dan pemohon kedua berkuat kuasa pada 3 Mac 2022 adalah batal dan tidak sah. (b) Satu perintah certiorari membatalkan (quash) keputusan responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua yang S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 BA-25-44-06/2022 disampaikan kepada pemohon pertama dan pemohon kedua melalui surat bertarikh 10 Mac 2022 yang bernombor rujukan masing-masing MAIS/SPK/BPT/01/012/01/28 Jilid 9(07) dan MAIS/SPK/BPT/01/012/01/28 Jilid 8(06) yang telah memutuskan untuk menarik balik tauliah mengajar yang dikeluarkan kepada pemohon pertama dan pemohon kedua berkuat kuasa pada 3 Mac 2022. (c) Satu perintah mandamus supaya pihak responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua mengembalikan semula tauliah mengajar kepada pemohon pertama dan pemohon kedua. (d) Sekiranya pada masa pendengaran substentive permohonan ini tauliah mengajar pemohon pertama dan/atau pemohon kedua telahpun tamat maka satu perintah mandamus agar responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua menerima permohonan lanjutan tauliah tanpa perlu membuat permohonan baru sama ada permohonan dibuat secara fizikal atau melalui atas talian. (e) Satu deklarasi bahawa responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua tidak boleh menghalang pemohon- pemohon dan/atau mana-mana pemegang tauliah mengajar yang diberikan oleh responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua untuk melibatkan diri dalam politik dan sekiranya terdapat larangan sedemikian maka larangan tersebut adalah batal dan tidak sah serta tidak berperlembagaan. (f) Satu deklarasi bahawa peruntukan di bawah Peraturan 21 Peraturan-Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008 adalah tidak sah dan/atau tidak berperlembagaan kerana S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 BA-25-44-06/2022 mengehadkan kuasa mahkamah untuk menyemak keputusan-keputusan yang dibuat oleh responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua. (g) Ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teruk dan/atau teladan diberikan kepada pemohon-pemohon atas kerugian yang dialami oleh kerana tauliah mengajar ditarik balik menyebabkan kerugian dialami oleh pemohon-pemohon. (h) Semua arahan yang perlu dan berbangkit diberikan; dan (i) Kos bagi permohonan ini dan kos sampingan hendaklah dijadikan kos dalam kausa.”. Ringkasan Fakta Kes [7] Secara ringkasnya, fakta kes ini adalah bahawa pemohon pertama adalah penceramah bebas berkenaan hal ehwal agama Islam. [8] Pada 1 Disember 2021, pemohon pertama telah menerima surat bertarikh 1 Disember 2021 daripada responden pertama yang menyatakan bahawa Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tauliah MAIS Bil. 3/2021 yang bersidang pada 29 Oktober 2021 telah memutuskan untuk menarik balik tauliah mengajar di bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008 kepada mana-mana pemegang tauliah yang terlibat aktif atau/dan memegang jawatan mana-mana parti politik. [9] Pemohon pertama kemudiannya telah menghantar surat bertarikh 7 Disember 2021 melalui peguamcara pemohon pertama kepada S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 BA-25-44-06/2022 responden kedua dan menyatakan bahawa pemohon pertama tidak memegang apa-apa jawatan di dalam parti politik. [10] Pada 27 Disember 2021, pemohon-pemohon telah menerima surat daripada responden pertama dan mengatakan bahawa Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tauliah Bil 1/2021 pada 15 Disember 2021 telah memutuskan untuk menerima penjelasan/penafian sebagai aktivis politik oleh pemohon pertama dan tauliah mengajar yang dikeluarkan kepadanya adalah kekal berkuatkuasa sehingga tamat tempoh tauliah. [11] Pada sekitar bulan Mac 2022, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tauliah MAIS Bil. 1/2022 yang bersidang pada 3 Mac 2022 telah memutuskan untuk menarik balik tauliah mengajar yang dikeluarkan kepada pemohon pertama dan pemohon kedua berkuat kuasa pada 3 Mac 2022. [12] Pemohon kedua kemudiannya membuat rayuan yang mana pada 11 Ogos 2022, pemohon kedua telah menerima surat daripada responden pertama menyatakan bahawa rayuan pemohon kedua telah diterima dan tauliah kepada pemohon kedua kekal berkuatkuasa sehingga tauliah tersebut tamat pada 30 Jun 2024 melainkan jika tauliah pemohon kedua digantung atau ditamatkan dengan lebih awal. Bantahan Awal Oleh Responden Ketiga [13] Di awal pendengaran permohonan semakan kehakiman ini, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan terpelajar bagi pihak responden ketiga berhujah bahawa responden ketiga seharusnya tidak dinamakan S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 BA-25-44-06/2022 sebagai pihak dalam tindakan ini. Ini adalah kerana, secara ringkasanya: (i) responden ketiga tidak merupakan pembuat keputusan yang dicabar oleh pemohon; (ii) pemohon tidak menuntut sebarang relif yang spesifik terhadap responden ketiga; dan (iii) perkara-perkara yang telah diikrarkan dalam afidavit-afidavit hanya melibatkan responden pertama dan responden kedua. [14] Selanjutnya, pihak responden ketiga telah berhujah bahawa responden pertama dan responden kedua mempunyai identiti dan kapasiti di sisi undang-undang yang berasingan daripada responden ketiga. Responden pertama merupakan suatu pertubuhan perbadanan yang ditubuhkan di bawah undang-undang iaitu seksyen 4(1) Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 yang berperanan membantu dan menasihati Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Selangor (“DYMM Sultan”) dalam perkara- perkara yang berhubungan dengan agama Islam. Manakala responden kedua telah dilantik oleh responden kedua di bawah seksyen 118 Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003. [15] Oleh itu, responden pertama dan responden kedua bukanlah di bawah pentadbiran responden ketiga, dan responden ketiga tidaklah bertanggungjawab ke atas sebarang tindakan responden pertama. S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 BA-25-44-06/2022 [16] Berhubung bantahan awal oleh responden ketiga, mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada kes Ambiga Sreenevasan v. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen, Malaysia & Ors [2012] 7 CLJ 170 di mana mahkamah telah menyatakan: “[12] Thus, since the first respondent and the third respondent are not the decision makers of the impugned decision, judicial review cannot lie against them. To put it differently, there is no decision by the first and second respondents that is before this court to review. On this ground alone, this application ought to be struck out.”. [Emphasis added] [17] Selanjutnya dalam kes Dr Khoo Lee Seng v. Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan Malaysia & Majlis Perubatan Malaysia [2023] 1 LNS 125, mahkamah ini menyatakan: “[12] In the case at hand, the applicant had sought and was granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings, for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Council dismissing the applicant's appeal to be registered as a Plastic, Aesthetics and Reconstructive Surgery specialist. The decision maker here is the Council which has its own legal personality separate from the Director General. To obtain the relief of certiorari the aggrieved person, the applicant in the case at hand, is asking the court to review the said decision by exercising its supervisory powers provides in paragraph 1 read with section 25(2) of the Schedule Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The proper respondent when an order of certiorari is S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 BA-25-44-06/2022 sought must be the decision maker. In the case at hand the decision maker is the Council and no one else. To bring any other person who did not make the decision is frivolous and vexatious and also an abuse of the process of the court unless that person is an opposing party before a tribunal such as the Industrial Court or other tribunal exercising judicial quasi powers. … [15] The courts have at leave stage or by way of preliminary objection held that judicial review does not lie against parties who are not decision makers of the impugned decision under review. In Ambiga Sreenevasan v. Ketua Pengarah Imigresen, Malaysia & Ors [2012] 7 CLJ 170 an application was made to quash the decision refusing the applicant entry into Sarawak by the State Authority. The applicant apart from suing the decision maker (second respondent) also sued the Director General of Immigration, Malaysia (first respondent) and the Chief Minister of Sarawak (third respondent). The first and third respondents raised a preliminary objection arguing that they did not make the impugned decision and were therefore wrongly made parties in the judicial review proceedings. Rohana Yusuf J struck out the proceedings against the improperly and unnecessarily named parties stating: [12] Thus, since the first respondent and third respondent are not decision makers of the impugned decision, judicial review cannot lie against them. To put it differently, there is no decision by the first and second respondents that is before this court to review. On this S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 BA-25-44-06/2022 ground, alone, the application ought to be struck out.”. [18] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti fakta kes serta hujahan pihak responden ketiga ini dan mendapati bahawa keputusan untuk menarik balik tauliah pemohon pertama tidak merupakan keputusan responden ketiga. Sehubungan itu, berdasarkan fakta kes serta otoriti yang dirujuk, mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa bantahan awal pihak responden ketiga bermerit dan boleh dibenarkan. Isu Yang Dibangkitkan Oleh Pemohon Pertama [19] Dalam semakan kehakiman ini, pemohon pertama telah membangkitkan isu-isu berikut: (i) keputusan yang dibuat tidak konsisten dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan; (ii) mesyuarat yang dibuat tidak mengikut Peraturan-Peraturan Tauliah Negeri Selangor yang telah ditetapkan; (ii) hak untuk berpersatuan; (iii) kuasa am untuk membuat peraturan-peraturan; dan (iv) pemangsaan terhadap pemohon pertama semenjak dari awal lagi. S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 BA-25-44-06/2022 [20] Mahkamah telah meneliti isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh pemohon dan mendapati isu-isu ini tergolong kepada isu ketidak patuhan prosidur (procedural impropriety) dan ketidaksahan (illegality). Undang-Undang Berhubung Semakan Kehakiman [21] Adalah menjadi undang-undang mantap bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai kuasa untuk menyemak keputusan melalui permohonan semakan kehakiman yang difailkan di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Mahkamah Tinggi boleh membuat perintah sama ada mandamus, larangan, quo warranto dan/atau certiorari kepada mana-mana badan atau pihak berkuasa sekiranya wujud elemen ketidaksahan (illegality), ketidakrasionalan (irrationality) atau ketidak patuhan prosedur (procedural impropriety) dalam proses membuat keputusan tersebut. [22] Apa yang dimaksudkan dengan illegality, irrationality dan procedural impropriety boleh dilihat dari kes Council of Civil Service Unions & Ors v. Minister of Civil Service [1985] AC 374 yang mana telah diguna pakai oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 seperti berikut: “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 S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 BA-25-44-06/2022 question to be decided, in the event of a dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exerciseable. By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' (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. S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 BA-25-44-06/2022 Lord Diplock also mentioned 'proportionality' as a possible fourth ground of review which called for development.” [23] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ranjit Kaur a/p S Gopal Singh v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 6 MLJ 1 menyatakan: “[16] The Rama Chandran decision has been regarded or interpreted as giving the reviewing court a license to review without restrain decisions for substance even when the said decision is based on finding of facts. However, post Rama Chandran cases have applied some brakes to the courts’ liberal approach in Rama Chandran. The Federal Court in the case of Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd v Zaid Noh [1997] 1 MLJ 789; [1997] 2 CLJ 11 after affirming the Rama Chandran decision held that there may be cases in which for reason of public policy, national interest, public safety or national security the principle in Rama Chandran may be wholly inappropriate. [17] The Federal Court, in Petroliam National Bhd v Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288; [2003] 4 CLJ 625, again held that the reviewing court may scrutinise a decision on its merits but only in the most appropriate of cases and not every case is amenable to the Rama Chandran approach. Further, it was held that a reviewing judge ought not to disturb findings of the Industrial Court unless they were grounded on illegality or plain irrationality, even where the reviewing judge might not have come to the same conclusion.” S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 BA-25-44-06/2022 Analisa dan Dapatan [24] Berdasarkan otoriti yang telah dinyatakan berhubung prinsip semakan kehakiman, mahkamah ini akan meneliti permohonan semakan kehakiman ini. [25] Secara ringkasnya, pihak pemohon berhujah bahawa permohonan semakan kehakiman ini harus dibenarkan atas sebab-sebab berikut: (i) terdapat juga klausa penyingkiran "ouster clause" yang menyatakan bahawa keputusan responden pertama adalah muktamad dan ia jelas memungkiri Perlembagaan Persekutuan. (ii) responden-responden telah gagal mematuhi keadilan asasi sepertimana tersirat di dalam Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 dan yang dijamin oleh Artikel 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. (iii) tindakan responden-responden menarik balik tauliah adalah tidak adil, membebankan, remeh, menyusahkan, tidak munasabah serta memungkiri keadilan asasi. (iv) tiada notis dan hak pendengaran diberikan kepada pemohon dan menyebabkan satu kemungkiran berlaku di pihak pemohon yang boleh mengundang kesalahan jenayah syariah. S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 BA-25-44-06/2022 [26] Berhubung isu Peraturan 21 Peraturan-Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008, Peraturan 21 memperuntukkan bahawa apa-apa keputusan responden pertama mengenai rayuan pemegang tauliah terhadap keputusan responden kedua adalah muktamad dan hendaklah dipatuhi oleh pemegang tauliah. Dalam semakan kehakiman ini, pemohon pertama merupakan pemegang tauliah. [27] Peraturan 21 Peraturan-Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008 memperuntukan: “Appeal 21. (1) Any person who is dissatisfied with the decisions of the Committee in suspending or withdrawing his Tauliah may appeal against such decision to MAIS. (2) Any decision of MAIS under subregulation (1) is final and shall be complied with by the Tauliah Holder.”. [28] Dalam hal ini, undang-undang mantap (trite law) dan dapatan kes- kes mahkamah terdahulu telah pun menetapkan bahawa klausa muktamad (finality clause) seperti Peraturan 21 Peraturan- Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008 adalah diiktiraf sah di sisi undang-undang, dan klausa muktamad sebegitu tidak akan menafikan hak sesuatu pihak untuk membuat permohonan kepada mahkamah untuk menyemak sebarang keputusan yang dibuat menurut klausa muktamad tersebut. [29] Dalam kes Indera Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors and other appeals [2018] 3 CLJ 145, Mahkamah Persekutuan berpendapat bahawa walaupun keputusan S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 BA-25-44-06/2022 bentadbiran telah dinyatakan sebagai muktamad oleh suatu undang-undang, pihak yang terkesan (aggrieved party) tidak dihalang daripada merujuk kepada bidang kuasa pengawasan mahkamah. Klausa muktamad (finality clause) hanya menghalang rayuan dibuat oleh pihak yang terkesan. [30] Oleh itu, mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa Peraturan 21 Peraturan- Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008 adalah sah dan berperlembagaan. [31] Berhubung isu ketidak patuhan prosidur, fakta terperinci permohonan semakan kehakiman ini adalah bahawa pada 10 Mac 2022, responden pertama dan responden kedua telah menarik tauliah pemohon berkuatkuasa pada 3 Mac 2022. Responden pertama dan responden kedua merujuk kepada Seksyen 3, Seksyen 118(3) Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam Negeri Selangor dan Perenggan 8(e) Peraturan-Peraturan Tauliah (Negeri Selangor) 2008. Tiada alasan mengapa tauliah tersebut ditarik di dalam surat tersebut. [32] Selanjutnya pada 24 Mac 2022 peguam pemohon telah menghantar surat kepada setiausaha responden pertama antara lainnya menyatakan bantahan tentang penarikan tauliah tersebut. Surat tersebut telah diterima oleh Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (“JAIS”) pada 29 Mac 2022. [33] Pada 29 Mac 2022 pihak JAIS telah menghantar surat kepada Polis Diraja Malaysia (UP: Ketua Cawangan Khas Selangor P.T E6) meminta semakan dibuat oleh Cawangan Khas Polis Diraja Malaysia berkaitan status keaktifan pendakwah yang diberikan tauliah dalam parti politik. S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 BA-25-44-06/2022 [34] Responden pertama dan responden kedua telah pada 7 April 2022 membalas surat peguam pemohon antara lain menyatakan pemohon pertama boleh merayu terhadap keputusan responden kedua dan rayuan tersebut hendaklah dibuat kepada responden pertama. [35] Pada 8 April 2022 pemohon pertama menghantar surat kepada responden pertama antara lainnya untuk merayu terhadap keputusan responden kedua yang menarik tauliah pemohon. [36] Pada 28 April 2022 Pegawai Turus E6 bagi pihak Ketua Cawangan Khas menghantar surat kepada Pengarah JAIS berkaitan tapisan keselamatan, yakni semakan keaktifan individu dalam parti politik bagi permohonan tauliah mengajar negeri Selangor. Surat tersebut telah diterima oleh Bahagian Dakwah JAIS pada 29 April 2022. [37] Selanjutnya, pada 28 Jun 2022 satu mesyuarat telah diadakan yang mana responden kedua telah memutuskan untuk menolak rayuan pemohon pertama. [38] Mahkamah ini mendapati penarikan balik tauliah pemohon pertama tidak berasas memandangkan hanya pada 29 Mac 2022 pihak JAIS telah menghantar surat kepada Polis Diraja Malaysia (“PDRM”) meminta semakan dibuat oleh Cawangan Khas Polis Diraja Malaysia berkaitan status keaktifan pendakwah yang diberikan tauliah dalam parti politik, sedangkan tauliah pemohon pertama telah ditarik balik oleh responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua berkuatkuasa 3 Mac 2022. [39] Pegawai Turus E6 bagi pihak Ketua Cawangan Khas pada 28 April 2022 telah menghantar surat kepada Pengarah JAIS memaklumkan S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 BA-25-44-06/2022 berhubung tapisan keselamatan yakni semakan keaktifan individu dalam parti politik bagi permohonan tauliah mengajar negeri Selangor. [40] Berdasarkan fakta kes, ini bererti bahawa responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua telah menarik balik tauliah pemohon pertama sebelum semakan dan pegesahan pihak Ketua Cawangan Khas, PDRM dibuat ke atas status keaktifan pemohon pertama dalam parti politik. [41] Pada pandangan mahkamah ini, ini bererti bahawa semasa pihak responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua telah menarik balik tauliah pemohon pertama, tiada pengesahan daripada pihak PDRM bahawa pemohon pertama terlibat dalam aktiviti politik secara aktif. [42] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa seharusnya pengesahan dari pihak PDRM diperolehi dahulu sebelum responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua menarik balik tauliah pemohon pertama. Dalam permohonan semakan kehakiman ini, apabila responden pertama dan responden kedua bertindak sedemikian, yakni menarik balik tauliah pemohon pertama tanpa adanya pengesahan pihak PDRM, maka ianya boleh membangkitkan isu mala fide. [43] Pihak responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua telah menarik balik tauliah pemohon pertama tanpa pengesahan PDRM bahawa pemohon pertama terlibat dalam aktiviti politik secara aktif. Pihak responden pertama dan kedua boleh dikatakan telah membuat keputusan untuk menarik balik tauliah pemohon pertama tanpa adanya bukti atau pengesahan dari pihak PDRM. Dalam erti kata lain, responden pertama dan responden kedua telah prejudge penglibatan pemohon pertama dalam aktiviti politik. S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 BA-25-44-06/2022 [44] Oleh yang demikian, berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang telah dinyatakan di atas, mahkamah ini mendapati terdapatnya ketidak patuhan prosidur (procedural impropriety) apabila pihak responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua telah pada 10 Mac 2022 menarik tauliah pemohon berkuat kuasa pada 3 Mac 2022. [45] Pemohon pertama telah melalui perenggan (h) di Lampiran 1 telah memohon kepada mahkamah ini untuk relif ganti rugi. Permohonan tersebut boleh didapati dalam Perenggan 16, Pernyataan selaras dengan Aturan 53 Kaedah 3(2) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Lampiran 2) yang berbunyi seperti berikut:- “Pemohon-pemohon juga memohon ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teruk dan/atau ganti rugi teladan diberikan kepada pemohon- pemohon atas kerugian yang dialami oleh kerana tauliah mengajar ditarik balik menyebabkan kerugian pendapatan dialami oleh pemohon” [46] Berhubung relief ini, mahkamah telah merujuk kepada Aturan 53 Kaedah 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 2012 yang memperuntukkan: “Damages (O. 53, r. 5) 5. (1) On an application for judicial review the Court may, subject to paragraph (2), award damages to the applicant if— (a) he has included in the statement in support of his application for leave under rule 3 a claim for damages arising from any matter to which the application relates; and (b) the Court is satisfied that, if the claim has been made in an action begun by the applicant at the time S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 BA-25-44-06/2022 of making his application, he could have been awarded damages. (2) Order 18, rule 12, shall apply to a statement relating to a claim for damages as it applies to a pleading.” [47] Berdasarkan peruntukkan diatas, Mahkamah boleh, tertakluk kepada Aturan 18, kaedah 12, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, mengawardkan ganti rugi kepada pemohon sekiranya pemohon memenuhi dua keperluan yakni: (i) tuntutan terhadap ganti rugi tersebut telah dimasukkan ke dalam pernyataan sebagai menyokong permohonan untuk kebenarannya di bawah Aturan 53, kaedah 3, Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; dan (ii) Mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa sekiranya tuntutan tersebut dibuat dalam suatu tindakan yang dimulakan oleh pemohon pada masa pemohon membuat permohonan untuk semakan kehakiman ini, pemohon sepatutnya diawadkan ganti rugi. [48] Berbalik kepada kes di hadapan mahkamah ini, tidak dinafikan bahawa pemohon pertama sememangnya telah masukkan tuntutan terhadap ganti ruginya di dalam pernyataan selaras dengan Aturan 53 Kaedah 3(2) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Lampiran 2). [49] Pemohon harus memuaskan mahkamah bahawa sekiranya tuntutan untuk ganti rugi tersebut difailkan semasa permohonan semakan kehakiman ini difailkan, pemohon berhak untuk S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 BA-25-44-06/2022 diawadkan ganti rugi tersebut. Dalam berbuat sedemikian, pemohon harus memasukkan butir-butir mengenai tuntutan ganti rugi tersebut selaras dengan peruntukkan dibawah Aturan 18, kaedah 12, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. [50] Penelitian mahkamah terhadap perenggan 16 Lampiran 2 yang difailkan oleh pemohon pertama, pemohon pertama seolah-olah hanya menuntut ganti rugi yang bersampingan atau berlandaskan kerugian pendapatan yang dialami oleh pemohon pertama akibat penarikbalikan tauliah tersebut. [51] Tambahan juga, butiran kerugian pendapatan tersebut tidak dinyatakan di mana-mana bahagian pernyataan tersebut, dan pemohon pertama juga gagal menghuraikannya di dalam Afidavit Sokongan yang difailkan bersama-sama dengan permohonan semakan kehakiman ini. Dengan hormatnya mahkamah ini tidak berpuas hati berhubung kerugian yang sebenarnya dialami oleh pemohon pertama dalam penarikbalikan tauliah mengajar tersebut. Isu ini juga tidak dihujahkan oleh peguamcara pemohon pertama dalam hujahannya yang difailkan. [52] Berhubung isu ini, dalam kes Empayar Canggih Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Bahagian Penguatkuasa Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri dan Hal Ehwal Pengguna Malaysia & Anor [2010] 9 CLJ 46 Mohamad Ariff Yusof HMT (sepertimana beliau ketika itu) telah membuat penemuan berkenaan isu ganti rugi seperti berikut: “[15] … At any rate, such a claim for damages, if brought as part of a judicial review application, should be established as maintainable as an ordinary action if an ordinary action is S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 BA-25-44-06/2022 brought. It is necessary at this juncture to mark out the principles and rules in this connection. [16] “Damages are available on judicial review only where there is a right to damages in private law.” Gordon, Judicial Review and Crown Office Practice (1999): This result is ensured by the phraseology of O. 53 r. 7(1)(b) … which provides that before damages can be awarded the court must be satisfied that: if the claim had been made in an action begun by the Applicant at the time of making his application, he could have been awarded damages. The Applicant must include the claim in his Statement in Support of the application for leave … In view, however, of the court’s wide powers of amendment … the omission of a claim for damages would not appear to be fatal provided that such right existed at the time the application was made. Where damages are sought they must be pleaded with the same particularity in an ordinary action … The inclusion of such a remedy on judicial review is a concession to procedural convenience. Nonetheless the following consequences ought to follow from the fact of a private law remedy being available in public law proceedings:- (a) If the Applicant fails to persuade the court that he has a remedy in public law he should not be awarded damages. This is implicit in the requirement that damages cannot be S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 BA-25-44-06/2022 claimed unless subordinate to a claim for one or more of the principal orders available... (b) Even if a right to damages is made out the court, in judicial review proceedings, presumably has a discretion to refuse the order... (c) Since, ex hypothesis, the remedy lies for infringement of a private law right it cannot be an abuse of process to initiate a claim for damages by action rather than proceeding under O. 53... (d) Interest on the amount of damages should be capable of being recovered... (at para 3.366-3.368, pp. 203-204). [17] See also Clive Lewis, Judicial Remedies in Public Law (4th edn.): Such claim can only be made in addition to a claim for the prerogative remedies... a claim for damages cannot be made in isolation. Damages may only be awarded if they could have been awarded in an ordinary claim; that is, only if there was a right to damages at private law... No new remedy or right to damages is introduced by the rules. The rules simply provide, as a matter of convenience, that claim for private law damages... may be included in a claim for judicial review... [18] See also Michael Supperstare and James Goudie, Judicial Review (1997): The new RSC Ord. 53 is a reform concerned with remedies and with public law, not extending, or diminishing, S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 BA-25-44-06/2022 substantive rights in private law. It creates no new cause of action. It enables a claim for damages for breach of a private law duty resulting from unlawful conduct by a public authority to be joined with a public law application to establish the unlawfulness rather than being claimable only in an action begun by writ. That is of value because it avoids the instigation of duplicate proceedings. [19] It then appears that a claim for damages in a judicial review application cannot be grounded only on the basis that there has been merely an infringement of the principles of administrative law. The applicant has to proceed further and establish that he has a right to damages at private law if initiated in an ordinary action. …” [53] Berdasarkan kepada kes tersebut diatas, pemohon pertama harus memuas hati mahkamah bahawa sekiranya suatu tuntutan dibuat dalam tuntutan berasingan dan ganti rugi akan diawadkan dalam tuntutan asing tersebut, barulah mahkamah boleh mengawadkan ganti rugi yang dituntut pemohon dalam permohonan untuk semakan kehakiman ini. [54] Pada pandangan mahkamah ini, pemohon pertama gagal memberikan sebarang butiran yang selanjutnya untuk melayakkan beliau diberikan ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teladan dan ganti rugi teruk. Ianya adalah tidak mencukupi untuk pemohon hanya menyatakan suatu kenyataan dengan kepala “ganti rugi” atas kekhilafan responden-responden kepada mahkamah dan memohon kepada mahkamah untuk memberikan relif-relif yang dituntutnya. S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 BA-25-44-06/2022 [55] Oleh yang demikian, berdasarkan kepada kesemua kertas-kertas kausa yang sedia ada di hadapan mahkamah ini, mahkamah ini tidak yakin bahawa sekiranya pemohon pertama membuat tuntutan secara berasingan terhadap responden-responden beliau akan diawadkan dengan ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teladan dan ganti rugi teruk. Kesimpulan [56] Atas alasan-alasan yang telah dihuraikan dan dinyatakan, permohonan semakan kehakiman ini dibenarkan dengan satu perintah certiorari membatalkan (quash) keputusan responden pertama dan/atau responden kedua yang disampaikan kepada pemohon pertama dan pemohon kedua melalui surat bertarikh 10 Mac 2022 yang bernombor rujukan masing-masing MAIS/SPK/BPT/01/012/01/28 Jilid 9(07) dan MAIS/SPK/BPT/01/012/01/28 Jilid 8(06) yang telah memutuskan untuk menarik balik tauliah mengajar yang dikeluarkan kepada pemohon pertama dan pemohon kedua berkuat kuasa pada 3 Mac 2022. Tiada perintah terhadap kos. Tarikh: 20 Disember 2023 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi di Malaya, Shah Alam S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 BA-25-44-06/2022 Peguam: Pihak Pemohon: Mohd Jamil bin Yaacob, Nurul Alia binti Salim Tetuan Srihana Mohamed & Partners Advocates & Solicitors No. 7-1B, Tingkat 1, Jalan Boling Padang H 13/H, Seksyen 13, 40100 Shah Alam, Selangor. wansrihana@gmail.com +6 013 584 9109 Pihak Responden 1: Arham Rahimy bin Hariri Tetuan Arham & Co. Advocates & Solicitors Unit 1-06, Primera Suite, Block 3520, Jalan Teknokrat 6, Cyber 5, 63000 Cyberjaya, Selangor. office@arham.com.my +6 03 8084 1988 Pihak Responden 2: Husna Binti Abdul Halim, Khairul Nizam bin Abu Bakar Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang, Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 40503 Shah Alam, Selangor. S/N c8/ChWDFEqUh3KmIUabZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22M-265-07/2020

PLAINTIF EVERGREEN CORPORATE SDN BHD DEFENDAN EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD

BANKING: Ijarah facility - Conditions precedent - Non-fulfillment - Right to terminate - Obligations to perform - One month deadline - No reminder notices - Partial compliance - Mandatory compliance - Time of essence - Single condition blocking fund release - Interpretation of termination clauses - Unilateral right - Absolute discretion - Varied timeframe - Validity of termination - Failure to utilise within time - Final and conclusive - Notice of Termination not challenged - Opportunity to remedy - Waiver of contractual terms - Conduct of parties - Strict compliance - Time stipulation - No waiver notice - No new deadline - No evidence of waiver - Express waiver required - Section 29 Contracts Act 1950 - Restraint of legal proceedings - Unfair contractual term - Access to enforcement - Restriction of court access - Oppressiveness and unfairness - Borrower's rights restricted - Loss recovery prevented

20/12/2023

YA Tuan Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2d006251-6a0b-4943-80d4-3a33a48ef1f0&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO. WA-22M-265-07/2020 BETWEEN EVERGREEN CORPORATE SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 827096-W) ...PLAINTIFF AND EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD (COMPANY NO.: 357198-K) ...DEFENDANT JUDGMENT [1] This dispute stems from a financing agreement between the plaintiff industrialist and defendant financier bank that was terminated by the latter. The plaintiff contends that the defendant bank in arbitrary fashion terminated the facility without disbursing the promised sums which remained pending fulfilment of stipulated contractual conditions and prerequisites as would reasonably enable commencement of works towards the recycling plant construction project. The defendant bank claims non-compliance of said prerequisites for continued financial backing, leading to valid termination owing to unfinished prerequisites despite passage of stipulated timeframes. However, the plaintiff avers that it was in total compliance to deserve release of funds per initial contractual expectations and claims of 20/12/2023 11:02:47 WA-22M-265-07/2020 Kand. 84 S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 attendant legitimate expectation in the premises. Hence the core issue at stake here lies in determining whether the termination rested on legal footing or amounted to commercially unreasonable conduct. Background Facts [2] The Plaintiff, Evergreen Corporate Sdn Bhd (“Evergreen”), is a company involved in recycling used tires into diesel, carbon black, steel wires and synthetic gas using green technology. The Defendant, Export-Import Bank of Malaysia Berhad (“EXIM”), is a financial institution that provides various financing facilities to domestic and international companies to support development of strategic projects in line with the Government’s economic objectives. [3] In 2016, Evergreen conceived a project to construct and operate on a commercial scale, a thermal decomposition plant with green technology capable of recycling used tires in Simpang Pulai, Perak (“the Plant”). The Plant would allow Evergreen to increase the output, efficiency and sustainability of its recycling business. [4] The proposed capacity was 4 production lines in the Plant, which could process 800 metric tonnes of used tires per day. The end recycled products would comprise of diesel, carbon black, steel wires and synthetic gas. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [5] The estimated project cost was USD 10.35 million. As Evergreen did not have sufficient funds, it approached EXIM to secure an Islamic project financing facility. [6] On 2.11.2016, EXIM offered an Islamic financing facility of USD 10,350,000 (“the Facility”) to Evergreen for the construction of the Plant and purchase of a Thermal Recovery Unit to be installed in the Plant. The offer was revised on 14.2.2017 and 3.4.2017. Subsequently, the parties entered into an Ijarah Facility Agreement (“Facility Agreement”) on 5.6.2017 where EXIM agreed to grant Evergreen the Facility. The Facility Agreement set out the detailed terms and conditions applicable to the grant and drawdown of the Facility. [7] Pursuant to Clause 6.2 read together with Schedule 2 of the Facility Agreement, Evergreen was required to fulfil all the stipulated conditions precedent within one month from the date of the Facility Agreement, which was by 5.7.2017. There were altogether 30 conditions precedent consisting of 25 conditions precedent and 5 additional conditions precedent that Evergreen had to comply with. As security for the Facility, Evergreen charged a piece of land held under title PN 352495 (formerly HSD 92915), Lot 302294, Mukim Sungai Raya, Daerah Kinta, Negeri Perak (“the Land”) to EXIM on 27.3.2018. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] In accordance with the terms of the Facility Agreement, Evergreen proceeded to take steps and expended funds to fulfil the stipulated conditions precedent, which were pre- disbursement obligations. [9] This included making payments to EXIM for fees and deposits, settling professional fees for lawyers and consultants advising on the project, obtaining relevant approvals from authorities, preparing the required documents, furnishing information/documents to EXIM, evaluating suitable technology providers capable of meeting technical specifications agreed with EXIM, and negotiating the construction contract. [10] The charge over the Land was eventually created and registered in favour of EXIM on 27.3.2018. Other major conditions fulfilled were approval from Department of Environment on 11.6.2018. [11] On 27.8.2018, EXIM issued a Termination Notice of the same date (“the Termination Notice”) terminating the Facility and the Facility Agreement on the ground that Evergreen failed to fulfil the conditions precedent within the one month period. Evergreen wrote to EXIM by way of a letter dated 28.9.2018 (“Appeal Letter”) appealing for the facility to be reinstated after it fulfils the conditions precedent. EXIM replied on 8.1.2019 requesting Evergreen to provide documents to support its appeal. Evergreen submitted the requested documents on 21.2.2019. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Subsequently, on 27.11.2019, EXIM notified Evergreen that it has rejected Evergreen’s appeal request. [12] On 6.1.2020, Evergreen issued, through its solicitors, a letter of demand to EXIM demanding release of the financing sum. EXIM denied liability on 20.1.2020. As such, on 2.7.2020, Evergreen commenced this suit against EXIM claiming that the termination was wrongful and seeking specific performance of the Facility Agreement, damages, interests and costs. Evergreen’s claims [13] Evergreen is claiming the following in this action against EXIM: a) A declaration that EXIM's termination letter dated 27.8.2018 terminating the Facility and Facility Agreement is invalid. b) A declaration that EXIM's letter dated 27.11.2019 rejecting Evergreen's appeal to reinstate the Facility is invalid. c) A declaration that the Facility Agreement dated 5.6.2017 entered into between the parties is still valid and binding on the parties. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 d) An order of specific performance requiring EXIM to release and disburse the full financing amount of USD10,350,000 to Evergreen. e) Damages to be assessed for loss of profits which Evergreen would have made from the project if not for the termination. f) Damages to be assessed for loss of contracts suffered by Evergreen. g) Damages for loss of use of the Land which Evergreen charged to EXIM as security for the Facility. h) General damages. i) Special damages totaling RM 21,385,692 comprising capital costs of RM15,513,610 incurred by Evergreen and administrative costs of RM 5,872,082 from 2016 to February 2020. j) Interest, costs and any other relief deemed fit by the court. Summary of Evergreen’s case [14] Evergreen contends that EXIM's termination of the Facility and Facility Agreement is wrongful and invalid. Evergreen S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 claims it has fulfilled all the conditions precedent and terms of the Facility Agreement, yet EXIM suddenly terminated the agreement on 27.8.2018 without disbursing any funds. [15] Evergreen argues that the one month timeframe stipulated in the Facility Agreement for Evergreen to comply with all the conditions precedent was unreasonable and impracticable given there were 30 conditions precedent to be fulfilled. The conduct and actions of the parties showed that this timeframe was varied and replaced with a new extended timeframe. However, EXIM failed to specify a new deadline and instead wrongfully terminated based on the original one month timeframe. [16] Evergreen submits that by its conduct of accepting partial or late compliance of conditions precedent, such as registering the land charge in March 2018 and accepting subsequent payments and documents from Evergreen after July 2017, EXIM had waived the original one month timeframe such that time was no longer of the essence of the contract. Hence, the termination without giving a new timeframe was premature and unlawful. [17] Additionally, EXIM failed to issue any reminder notice to Evergreen regarding any outstanding conditions precedent or set a new deadline for compliance before the abrupt termination. This denied Evergreen the opportunity to remedy any breach. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [18] Evergreen claims it has suffered substantial losses from this wrongful termination as it was fully prepared to proceed with constructing the plant to commence business operations. Hence, Evergreen seeks a declaration that the termination was invalid, specific performance of the Facility Agreement, damages to be assessed for loss of profits, costs incurred and interest. Summary of EXIM’s case [19] EXIM denies that the termination of the Facility and Facility Agreement was wrongful. EXIM maintains that it validly terminated the Facility Agreement as Evergreen failed to fulfil all the stipulated conditions precedent within the one month timeframe from the date of the Agreement on 5.6.2017, which Evergreen agreed to per Clause 6.2 read with Schedule 2. [20] EXIM submits that by 27.8.2018 when it issued the termination notice, there were still many outstanding conditions precedent yet to be complied with by Evergreen, despite the one month timeframe having long lapsed. EXIM highlights that Evergreen even admitted in its Appeal Letter dated 28.9.2018 requesting the facility to be reinstated, that it was still working towards fulfilling all conditions precedent. [21] Hence, EXIM argues that it was contractually entitled under Clause 6.4 to terminate if conditions precedent remained unfulfilled. The question of whether time continued to be of S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 the essence is irrelevant as this clause does not require a specific timeframe to be operative. Further, EXIM was not obliged to provide any reminder notice on outstanding conditions precedent or new deadline prior to termination. [22] Additionally, the Facility Agreement also permitted EXIM to terminate if the financing was not utilised within 12 months of the Agreement, which had lapsed by 27.8.2018 when it terminated. [23] EXIM stresses that by accepting late or partial compliance, it neither waived the one month timeframe nor treated time as ceasing to be of the essence. EXIM maintains that termination was valid and lawful; hence it owes no damages to Evergreen which has not suffered any loss. Witnesses [24] Evergreen called five witnesses whose witness statements are marked “PS-SP1” to “PS-SP5” as follows: a) SP1 is Andri Arif, the Ketua Jabatan Perancang Bandar (Chief Town Planner) for Majlis Daerah Batu Gajah. His evidence was on Evergreen's application for planning permission and the council's approval process for a green commodity plant project. His Witness Statement is marked as “PS-SP1.” b) SP2 is Rohaiza Muhamad, formerly the Programme Director of Corporate Strategy Malaysian Industry- S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT). Her evidence was on on her knowledge of the collaboration between Evergreen, MIGHT and EXIM for the development of green technology in Malaysia. Her Witness Statement is marked as “PS-SP2.” c) SP3 is Hasimah binti Haris, the Credit Analyst at Credit Guarantee Corporation Malaysia Berhad (“CGC”). Her evidence was on the guarantee and collateral provided by CGC for loan applications of Small and Medium Enterprises, specifically relating to Evergreen and its financing by EXIM. Her Witness Statement is marked as “PS-SP3.” d) SP4 is Kwan Meng Kian, the Director of Evergreen. His evidence was on the issues regarding the Facility Agreement with EXIM, specifically addressing terms and conditions of the agreement, their reasonableness, and the communication and fulfillment of these terms by Evergreen. His Witness Statement is marked as “PS-SP4.” e) SP5 is Wan Afif Azizul bin Wan Mohamed Aqble, the Director of Evergreen. His evidence was on Evergreen’s project involving the recycling of used tires into high-quality fuel using green technology, the financial dealings and agreements with EXIM, and the challenges faced in securing and maintaining S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 the funding for this project. His Witness Statement is marked as “PS-SP5.” [25] EXIM called 3 witnesses whose witness statements are marked “PS-SD1” to “PS-SD3” as follows: a) SD1 is Loqman Hakim Bin Sofian the Assistant Manager in the Banking Division 3 of EXIM. His evidence was on the validity and cancellation of the Facility Agreement between Evergreen and EXIM, including discussions on various financial transactions and terms under the agreement. His Witness Statement is marked as “PS-SD1.” b) SD2 is Wazir Bin Bahatin, the Head of Banking Division 3 of EXIM. His evidence was on Evergreen's failure to comply with the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent in the Facility Agreement, leading to its cancellation by EXIM. His Witness Statement is marked as “PS-SD2.” c) SD3 is Mohammad Azuan Bin Abdul Aziz, a practicing lawyer and a partner in the law firm Messrs Azrul Afifi & Azuan. His evidence was on the legal services provided by his firm for EXIM, particularly in preparing and advising on the Facility Agreement and its related documentation, including the fulfillment of conditions precedent and additional S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 conditions precedent by Evergreen. His Witness Statement is marked as “PS-SD3.” Issues [26] After considering the facts of the case and the defences relied on by EXIM, the court frames the following issues for deliberation which this court considers pivotal to the resolution of this case: a) Whether the cancellation and termination of the Facility Agreement dated 5.6.2017 by EXIM, as notified on 27.8.2018, were wrongful and invalid, on the grounds that Evergreen allegedly fulfilled all conditions precedent stipulated in the Facility Agreement, including the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent, as contended by Evergreen; and b) Whether the unilateral termination of the Facility Agreement by EXIM was valid, given its claim that Evergreen failed to meet all precedent conditions within the prescribed period, and considering EXIM's rights under the Agreement to terminate the Facility at its discretion when the conditions precedent have not been met to its satisfaction. [27] In the ensuing part of this judgment, this court will structure its deliberations around the issues above. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Analysis and findings of the court Conditions precedent not met [28] Evergreen’s pleaded case is that the cancellation of the Facility and termination of the Facility Agreement by EXIM vide the Termination Notice is wrongful, and therefore is invalid, by reason that allegedly it has fulfilled all conditions stipulated in the Facility (including the conditions precedent). In this regard, Evergreen pleaded: [29] Paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim: “12. The Plaintiff has also conformed and fulfilled the remaining conditions of the said Agreement yet the Defendant has suddenly issued a termination notice of financing facility vide letter dated 27/8/2018.” [30] Paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim: “18. The Plaintiff has done every effort to fulfill the needs and conditions of the Plaintiff in order to execute the construction of thermal decomposition plant and to obtain the financing facility. These efforts have been successfully done including obtaining the development order and building plan from the Batu Gajah District Council on January and April 2019, confirmation from the Malaysian Industry- Government Group For High Technology [MIGHT) dated 10/5/2019, obtaining the confirmation of 'Sijil Perakuan Perintis' from the Malaysian-Invesment Development Authority [MIDA) dated 18/7/2019 and obtaining grant of RM 2 million from the Northern Corridor Implementation Authority (NCER) on 17/9/2019.” S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [31] Paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim: “19. Despite all efforts have been duly done by the Plaintiff and the conditions of the said Agreement have been fulfilled until the Plaintiff has successfully obtaining the Planning Consent from the Local Authority and others as referred above, but the Defendant has still failed and refused to release the financing to the Plaintiff. Among of the conditions which have been fulfilled by the Plaintiff are …” [32] Evergreen submitted that there was no written or oral notice given by EXIM to Evergreen giving a new deadline before the unilateral termination of the contract by EXIM. No notice or communication was given to Evergreen informing about a new date or warning of Evergreen’s failure to comply with the conditions precedent. [33] In Evergreen's Appeal Letter dated 28.9.2018 to EXIM, Evergreen appeals to EXIM reconsider the termination of its financing facility. It acknowledged delays in meeting the conditions due to external factors like obtaining necessary environmental approvals and being victims of a scam. Evergreen assured the project's viability and its alignment with national green technology goals. It requested EXIM to reassess its credit and maintain the deposit held, apologising for the delays and emphasising its commitment to pioneering green technology in Malaysia. [34] EXIM replied to the Appeal Letter through its letter dated 8.1.2019 requesting Evergreen to provide 14 items. All the documents were prepared by Evergreen as stated in S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Evergreen's letter dated 21.2.2019 except for one document, the construction contract with Nestcon Builders Sdn. Bhd. (“Nestcon”) which was subsequently submitted to EXIM. Evergreen referred to emails between Evergreen and EXIM dated 27.6.2019 and 8.7.2019 discussing payment to Nestcon and a letter dated 14.9.2017 from Nestcon to Evergreen stating its acceptance as design and build contractor. [35] EXIM’s pleaded case is that contrary to Evergreen’s contention that the conditions precedent were satisfied, when EXIM cancelled the Facility and terminated the Facility Agreement, Evergreen had yet, at that time and thereafter, to fulfill all of the stipulated conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent. In relation to this, EXIM submitted as follows: a) EXIM referred to Clause 6.2 of the Facility Agreement which provides that EXIM’s obligation to make the Facility available within the Availability Period to Evergreen is subject to Evergreen having first fulfilled, among others, all conditions precedent stipulated in Schedule 2 of the Facility Agreement. Clause 6.2 provides: “Clause 6.2 In addition to the aforesaid, EXIM Bank's obligation to make available the Facility within the Availability Period shall be subject to the fulfilment prior to the S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Utilisation, of the conditions precedent and the additional conditions precedent as stipulated in Schedule 2 hereof (hereinafter referred to as “the Conditions Precedent''). Additionally, EXIM Bank's obligation to continue to make available the Facility shall also be subject to the Special Conditions also as stipulated in Schedule 2 hereof.” b) While Evergreen did fulfil several conditions precedent, Clause 6.2 of the Facility Agreement makes it mandatory for all conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent to be fulfilled and Evergreen is regarded as not having met the mandatory requirement even if there is only one condition precedent or additional condition precedent unfulfilled. c) EXIM has shown through SD2 that certain conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent were not met by Evergreen. d) Evergreen admitted to EXIM in the Appeal Letter that it has not fulfilled all the conditions precedent, stating, “We fervently hope that EXIM Bank will reconsider our financing facility application when our company has met all the conditions stated in the initial letter of offer.” e) Both SP4 and SP5, Evergreen’s directors, admitted in cross examination that not all the conditions precedent have been fulfilled. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 f) During cross examination, SP4 was unable to produce documents relating to the conditions precedent in respect of specific security documents to be executed, stamped and presented for registration with the relevant authorities as required in item A(b) in Schedule 2, read together with item 5 (f, g, i & j) in Schedule 1, and the submission of the latest valuation report for the Land indicating a market value of not less than RM18 million required in item A(q) in Schedule 2 were met. g) The authority’s approval for the construction of the project namely, the development approval, relating to the condition precedent under Item A(o) in Schedule 2, was obtained only on 29.1.2019, some 5 months after the Facility Agreement was terminated on 27.8.2018. [36] EXIM submitted that as there were still several conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent that remained outstanding, EXIM’s “obligation” to release the financing amount to Evergreen never arose. To support EXIM’s position that there is no breach of a bank’s obligation when a stipulated condition precedent is not fulfilled, it referred the court to the cases of RHB Bank Bhd v Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 665 (Federal Court) and Malayan Banking Berhad v TXN-COAT (Puchong) Sdn Bhd & Ors Suit No. D- 22NCC-204-2010 (unreported) (High Court). S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [37] EXIM further submitted that there was no evidence adduced by Evergreen to prove that EXIM had waived the requirement for Evergreen to fulfill the remaining conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent still outstanding. Further, there was no necessity for EXIM to remind or follow up with Evergreen on compliance. In support of this submission, EXIM relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd v Aquasix Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors [2014] 10 CLJ 18. [38] The court has examined Evergreen’s pleadings, and from these, it is clear that Evergreen takes the position that as the conditions precedent were all fulfilled, the termination of the Facility Agreement by EXIM on 27.8.2018 is a mistake, wrong and void as there was no reasonable reason given and the fact that Evergreen has not breached any provision of the Facility Agreement. In paragraph 13 Statement of Claim, it was pleaded: “The Plaintiff at the material time was in opinion that the termination is a mistake, wrong and void due to there was no reasonable reason given and the fact that the Plaintiff has not breached any provision of the said Agreement.” [39] Therefore, for Evergreen to be successful in establishing that EXIM wrongfully terminated the Facility Agreement, Evergreen must establish that all the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent were all fulfilled as pleaded. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [40] However, from the evidence, it is clear that not all the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent were fulfilled: a) SD2’s unchallenged evidence clearly shows that certain conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent were not met by Evergreen. In summary SD2’s evidence in Q& A 13 and 14 of PS- SD2 was that Evergreen failed to meet several conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent by the cancellation date of 27.8.2018. These unmet conditions include the non-receipt by EXIM of various notices and documents related to revenue assignments, project account assignments, performance bonds, legal compliance, and financial obligations. Additionally, Evergreen did not provide a signed construction contract for the Plant, documentary evidence of authority approvals for the project, and a valuation report showing the required market value for the Land used as security. b) Evergreen admitted to EXIM in the Appeal Letter that it has not fulfilled all the conditions precedent. c) Evergreen’s directors admitted in cross-examination that not all the conditions precedent have been fulfilled as of August 2018. SP4 was unable to provide necessary documentation in court to prove compliance with specific security document S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 requirements and a required valuation report for land. Additionally, Evergreen only obtained development approval for its project in January 2019, which was after the termination of the Facility Agreement in August 2018, indicating several conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent remained unfulfilled. d) The conditions precedent under item A(b), A(o) and A(q) in Schedule 2 of the Facility Agreement were not met. These conditions precedent are laid out as follows: i) Item A(b): “(b) The Facility Agreement and the security documents which are required to be perfected, shall have been duly executed, stamped and presented for registration with the relevant authorities to the satisfaction of EXIM Bank.” ii) Item A(o): “o) The relevant documentary evidence satisfactory to EXIM Bank on the authority approval for the construction of the Project and licenses to operate upon completion.” S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 iii) Item A(q): “(q) A latest valuation report for the Charged Property prepared by EXIM Bank's panel valuer and to be addressed to EXIM Bank indicating the market value of the Charged Property of not less than Ringgit Malaysia of Eighteen Million (RM18,000,000.00).” [41] At the trial, Evergreen, instead of proving that it had satisfied all the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent, attempted to establish that it had satisfied almost all major conditions precedent. This does not establish the elements required in Evergreen’s own pleaded case. [42] In Evergreen’s letter 21.2.2019, it requested EXIM to reconsider the Facility. It listed the items required by EXIM for additional due diligence, including various documents, contracts, and approvals, with a status update on each item. Evergreen expresses gratitude for EXIM understanding and support, emphasising its commitment to green technology in Malaysia, and seeks reinstatement of the financing to build an advanced recycling plant. [43] Evergreen’s fulfillment of the items stated in Evergreen's letter dated 21.2.2019 still does not establish that the conditions precedent were fulfilled. It was only to allow EXIM to reassess Evergreen’s financing application after the Facility Agreement was terminated earlier on 27.8.2018. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 This is clear from the letter as Evergreen acknowledged, “Upon further discussion with your team on 9 January 2019, we thank you for the opportunity to reassess our financing facility.” Evergreen knew that it was not a given that even if all the items requested by EXIM were provided, the Facility would be reinstated. [44] In any case, Evergreen failed to comply with the requirement to provide the construction contract with Nestcon. The emails dated 27.6.2019 and 8.7.2019 do not establish that the construction contract with Nestcon was provided. The letter dated 14.9.2017 from Nestcon to Evergreen is not a construction contract. Nestcon merely stated its acceptance as the Design & Build Contractor for the project and its intention to coordinate design and local authority submission work. [45] As Evergreen did not establish that all the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent were all fulfilled as pleaded, Evergreen was not successful to prove that EXIM wrongfully terminated the Facility Agreement and for this reason Evergreen’s claim in this action fails. [46] The court accepts that there is no breach of EXIM’s obligation when a stipulated condition precedent is not fulfilled as decided in RHB Bank Bhd v Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [supra] cited by EXIM. The RHB Bank case concerns concerns a housing developer's claim against the bank for alleged breaches of financing facilities S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 provided for a housing project development. The housing developer requested an additional RM 45,000 facility from the bank, who released only RM 2,000 due to the respondent's non-compliance with conditions for detailed expenditure breakdowns. This led to a dispute, with the court needing to assess if the appellant's limited release of funds constituted a breach of agreement. The Federal Court ruled that the bank was not in breach of contract for refusing to release financing sums while conditions precedent stipulated in the financing agreements remained unfulfilled by the developer. It was held, per James Foong FCJ: “[42] While attempting to revive the project in 1989 after it was stalled in 1987, the respondent had requested from the appellant an additional facility of RM45,000. This was allowed but with conditions attached. According to the respondent, the appellant only released a sum of RM2,000 and this constituted a breach of the agreement. [43] The High Court, as we have stated earlier, made no finding on this. The Court of Appeal, except narrating that only a sum of RM2000 was released out of a total facility of RM45,000 and the failure of the parties to agree to the scope of a power of attorney to be granted by the respondent to the appellant as security for this loan, also made no specific ruling on this matter. It is therefore incumbent upon this court to examine the evidence adduced in this case to come up with a decision. [44] From our perusal of the evidence, we hold the view that the dispute over this matter was due to the reluctance of the appellant to release what was requested by the respondent unless they were strictly payments necessary for the completion of the Taman Dangi project up to the stage of a certificate of fitness for the houses built thereon. For this, the appellant demanded quotations on specific items to be spent. On the contrary, the respondent preferred a general disclosure on how S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 this sum was to be expended in order to revive the project. They requested for an initial lump sum of RM20,000. Instead, the appellant only permitted a sum of RM2,000. The appellant's reason for this limit B was the failure of the respondent to comply with the first condition set out in their letter of offer for this facility dated 17 July 1989 which reads: To furnish the Bank with a detail breakdown on cost for purchase of window louver, glass panes, labour cost and other touch up work that need to be done to ensure issuance of Certificate of Fitness from the relevant authorities (Please provide quotations). [45] It is not in dispute that the respondent did not comply with this. If this is the case then the appellant was not at fault for D refusing to release the full amount. For this reason, we find no merit in this ground.” (emphasis added) [47] Similarly in Malayan Banking Berhad v TXN-COAT (Puchong) Sdn Bhd & Ors [supra] cited by EXIM, a housing developer claimed against the bank for alleged breaches of several financing facilities granted to the developer for a housing construction project by way of a counterclaim. The developer alleged that the bank’s refusal to allow drawdown of an additional RM 2 million trade financing facility, caused the developer’s inability to fulfill contracts and losses. The High Court found the bank was not in breach as conditions precedent to further financing were not met. It dismissed the developer's claims of breach and entered judgment for the bank. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [48] The court also accepts that there was no evidence adduced by Evergreen to prove that EXIM had waived the requirement for Evergreen to fulfill the remaining conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent still outstanding and therefore there was no necessity for EXIM to remind or follow up with Evergreen on compliance. The court is guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd v Aquasix Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors [supra] cited by EXIM. This case concerns a plaintiff company's claim against Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad for breach of contract and failure to allow drawdown of an approved RM 1.5 million financing facility for acquiring an existing prawn farm, resulting in lost business opportunity and profits. The bank argued non-compliance of stipulated pre-disbursement conditions precedent. The High Court found the bank had waived the conditions and was liable for breach by not disbursing the facility. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, ruling that the plaintiff failed to fulfill the acquisition condition precedent, which was not waived. Hence the bank validly terminated the facility and was not in breach of contract. It was held per Ramly Ali JCA (as he then was): “The issue of this condition precedent is expressly provided for under cl. 6.2(c) of the agreement - “that the borrower (first plaintiff) shall have furnished to the bank (the defendant) the relevant documents evidencing its title to and interest in the property”. This is a predisbursement condition of the financing facilities that the first plaintiff need to fulfil and comply. The first plaintiff had accepted and signed the said agreement without any complaint or reservation. The first plaintiff was fully S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 aware of the contents of the said agreement. Therefore there is no necessity for the defendant to further communicate or put in writing to the first plaintiff in order to insist its request for the fulfilment and compliance of the said condition by the first plaintiff. There is no provision in the said agreement or other related documents requiring the defendant to do so.” [49] Given also that Evergreen has established that not all the conditions precedent were fulfilled, this also allows EXIM to rely on Clause 6.2 of the Facility Agreement to take on the position that it was not obliged to make the Facility available to Evergreen. Clause 6.2 of the Facility Agreement provides that EXIM’s obligation to make the Facility available within the Availability Period to Evergreen is subject to Evergreen having first fulfilled, among others, all conditions precedents stipulated in Schedule 2 of the Facility Agreement. This will be addressed in more detail below. Unilateral termination of the Facility Agreement [50] EXIM’s case is stated succinctly in EXIM’s Case Summary which is produced in toto below in English: “1. Defendant disputes Plaintiff's entire claim. 2. The termination of the financing facilities amounting to USD10,350,000.00 (“the Financing Facility”) by the Defendant is valid as the Plaintiff failed to meet all precedent conditions within the prescribed period. 3. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement the Defendant has the absolute discretion and reserves the right to terminate the Financing Facility at any time while the previous conditions have not yet S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 been met by the Plaintiff to the satisfaction of the Defendant. 4. Further, the Defendant is entitled to terminate the Financing Facility as the facility was not or failed to be utilised by or disbursed to the Plaintiff within the “Availability Period” provided in the Agreement. 5. Therefore, the Defendant has no obligation to provide the Financing Facility to the Plaintiff.” [51] EXIM referred the court to the relevant clauses in the Facility Agreement: a) Clause 6.2 of the Facility Agreement states that subject to Evergreen having first fulfilled all the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent, EXIM was obligated to make the Facility available to Evergreen within the “Availability Period” only; b) Clause 1.1 of the Facility Agreement defines “Availability Period” as “the period as specified under item 3(c) of Schedule 1 hereto;”. Item 3(c) of Schedule 1 provides: “Item 3(c) of Schedule 1 Within a period of Twelve (12) months from the date of this Facility Agreement or such other date which shall be deemed to include any extension thereof made by EXIM Bank at its sole and absolute discretion, provided that the first Disbursement / Utilisation shall be made within Three (3) months from the date of this Facility Agreement. Failure to make S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 such Disbursement / Utilisation shall entitle EXIM Bank to revoke / withdraw from granting the Facility.” [52] EXIM submitted that as EXIM never granted Evergreen any extension for the disbursement or utilisation of the Facility, the “Availability Period” ended on 4.6.2018, 12 months from the date of the Facility Agreement. Pursuant to Clause 6.2 EXIM is entitled to cancel the Facility at any time after the “Availability Period” ended, which it did on 27.8.2018, since Evergreen did not utilise the Facility within such period due to its failure to fulfil the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent. [53] EXIM maintained that Evergreen’s delay in utilising or drawing down the Facility or its failure to do so within the “Availability Period” was not attributable to EXIM in any way. EXIM pointed out that Evergreen admitted to this fact and in fact apologised to EXIM for the delay in its Appeal Letter dated 28.9.2018 after the Facility Agreement was terminated. [54] EXIM referred the court to further provisions in the Facility Agreement: a) Paragraph A in Schedule 2 of the Facility Agreement provides that the Facility can only be disbursed to or utilised by Evergreen after all the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent have been met by it: S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 “Conditions Precedent Disbursement / Utilisation shall be made after but not limited to the following Conditions Precedent and the Additional Conditions Precedent having been meet. The Conditions Precedent and the Additional Conditions Precedent must be completed within One (1) month from the execution of the Facility Agreement failing which EXIM Bank shall have the absolute right to terminate the Facility Agreement.” b) Clause 6.4 of the Facility Agreement permits EXIM to terminate the Facility at its discretion whilst the conditions precedent have yet to be met by Evergreen and EXIM’s decision in this regard shall be “final and conclusive”: “Clause 6.4 Pending the fulfilment in manner satisfactory to EXIM Bank of the Conditions Precedent as stipulated, EX1M Bank may at its absolute discretion terminate the Facility or suspend the availability of any Utilisation or issuance pursuant to the Facility and the decision of EXIM Bank shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned on any account whatsoever.” [55] EXIM highlighted to the court that after receiving the Notice of Termination, Evergreen did not challenge the validity of the termination of the Facility Agreement as confirmed by SP5 in cross examination. “PD: Berhubung dengan, saya sekarang merujuk kepada pembatalan kemudahan yang pertama supaya Encik Wan faham, pembatalan pertama dan pembatalan kedua, saya merujuk kepada S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 pembatalan pertama dalam Ogos 2018. Encik Wan setuju bahawa dalam semua komunikasi oleh Evergreen kepada EXIM selepas tarikh pembatalan Ogos 2018, pihak Evergreen tidak ada menyatakan bantahan kepada pembatalan kemudahan tersebut. Menyatakan, kita bantah kepada pembatalan tersebut. Tidak ada? SP5: Tak ada.” [56] Instead, Evergreen requested EXIM by way of the Appeal Letter to reconsider its application for the Facility and only after EXIM rejected the request did Evergreen take an issue with the termination, demonstrating an afterthought on Evergreen’s part. [57] EXIM submitted that it did not breach the terms of the Facility Agreement when it cancelled the Facility and terminated the Facility Agreement on 27.8.2018 as it was acting within its express rights under Clause 6.2 and/or 6.4. [58] Evergreen submitted that EXIM did not have a valid right to terminate the Facility Agreement unilaterally in this case as EXIM cannot rely on the Clause 6.4 of the Facility Agreement allowing termination of the Facility Agreement unilaterally when a key term such as the period to satisfy the conditions precedent has been varied. [59] Evergreen further submitted that EXIM cannot terminate the financing unilaterally without giving it an opportunity to remedy any failure or omission. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [60] Evergreen submitted that the clauses in the Facility Agreement limiting the rights of Evergreen as a customer of EXIM was contrary to Section 29 of the Contracts Act 1950 and therefore, it was void. Section 29 provides as follows: “Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings void Every agreement, by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to that extent.” [61] Evergreen referred the court to the Federal Court case of CIMB Bank Bhd v Anthony Lawrence Bourke & Anor [2019] 2 MLJ 1 to support the above submission. Here the Federal Court held that where such exclusion clauses are drafted in a manner which effectively limits a party from enforcing its rights under a contract, such clauses would be void and in direct contravention of Section 29 of the Contracts Act, 1950. [62] Evergreen argued that the same situation here is present as the unilateral right by EXIM to cancel the agreement is void for being oppressive and unfair to Evergreen. [63] Evergreen also submitted that EXIM cannot rely on Clause 6.3 of the Facility Agreement to withdraw financing where there is a condition precedent that has not yet been fulfilled as based on the facts was that all major conditions precedent had been met by Plaintiff and Defendant should S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 have released the funding instead of terminating the agreement. [64] In reply, EXIM submitted that its right under Clause 6.4 of the Facility Agreement to terminate the Agreement is independent of any time period. Therefore, the question of whether time is of the essence or otherwise does not arise at all. The prerequisite to EXIM exercising its right under Clause 6.4 of the Facility Agreement is that there merely must exist, at that time of termination, outstanding conditions precedent and/or additional conditions precedent yet to be fulfilled by Evergreen. [65] In relation to Section 29 of the Contracts Act 1950 and the case of CIMB Bank Bhd v Anthony Lawrence Bourke & Anor [supra] referred to by Evergreen, EXIM argued that these are not applicable and can be distinguished on the facts and law. The issue that arose for determination in the Anthony Lawrence Bourke case concerns the validity of a provision in the loan agreement that restraints the borrower’s right to file any suit or seek damages against the bank. Contrary to Evergreen’s contention, Clause 6.4 of the Facility Agreement does not require EXIM to issue a notice to Evergreen to remedy its failure or omission prior to exercising its right of termination under the provision. [66] It is the court’s finding that the termination of the Facility Agreement by EXIM is valid as it had the absolute discretion to terminate the Facility at any time while the previous conditions have not yet been met by Evergreen to the S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 satisfaction of EXIM. The terms of Clauses 6.2 and 6.4 of the Facility Agreement are clear and unambiguous which entitled EXIM to terminate the Facility Agreement as: a) Evergreen has not yet satisfied some of the conditions precedent. Even when one of the conditions precedent is not met, EXIM can exercise that right to terminate (Clause 6.4). b) It is only when Evergreen has fulfilled all the conditions precedent and additional conditions precedent that EXIM was obligated to make the Facility available to Evergreen within the Availability Period (Clause 6.2). [67] Taking this further, EXIM could have terminated the Facility Agreement when the conditions precedent were not met by Evergreen within one month from the execution of the Facility Agreement as provided in Paragraph A in Schedule 2 of the Facility Agreement, but this EXIM did not do. Instead, EXIM allowed Evergreen to attempt to satisfy the conditions precedent even after the expiry of the one month. But this did not mean that EXIM waived its right to unilateral termination as provided in Clause 6.4. There was no evidence that EXIM did so. It was only after the Availability Period of the Facility expired that the Facility Agreement was terminated. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 [68] The fact that Evergreen did not object to the termination of the Facility Agreement on 28.9.2018 shows that Evergreen accepted that the termination was valid. Evergreen tried further to satisfy the conditions precedent and as a matter of goodwill EXIM entertained Evergreen after the termination of the Facility Agreement, but it was EXIM’s right to exercise its discretion to reject the appeal by way of its letter dated 27.11.2019. [69] Although Evergreen argued that EXIM cannot rely on the Clause 6.4 of the Facility Agreement to terminate the Facility Agreement unilaterally when the period to satisfy the conditions precedent has been varied, I do not find this to be relevant. I agree with EXIM’s submission that EXIM’s right under Clause 6.4 of the Facility Agreement to terminate the Agreement is independent of any time period. The words employed in Clause 6.4 are very clear. EXIM “may at its absolute discretion terminate the Facility” as long as the conditions precedent are left unfulfilled. In relation to this, I also reject Evergreen’s submission that EXIM should have released the funding as all major conditions precedent had been met. It is clear that the fulfilment of major conditions precedent does not oblige EXIM to release the funds. It must be complete fulfilment. [70] Evergreen’s argument that the unilateral right by EXIM to cancel the agreement is void for being oppressive and unfair to Evergreen, following the Anthony Lawrence Bourke case does not have merit. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 [71] In the case, the purchasers of a property sued their bank for negligence and breach of contract for its failure to make a progressive payment to a housing developer which resulted in the termination of the sale and purchase agreement between the housing developer and the purchasers. In its defence, the bank relied on an exclusion clause which reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in no event will the measure of damages payable by the Bank to the borrower for any loss or damage incurred by the Borrower include, nor will the Bank be liable for, any amounts for loss of income or profit or savings, or any indirect, incidental consequential exemplary punitive or special damages of the Borrower, even if the Bank had been advised of the possibility of such loss or damages in advance, and all such loss and damages are expressly disclaimed.” [72] Rightly, the Federal Court held that the exclusion clause which sought to restrict the purchasers from enforcing their full rights was void under the Malaysian Contracts Act. [73] Here, Clause 6.4 does not restrict Evergreen from enforcing its rights in court. It is only a clause that preserves EXIM’s rights to terminate the Facility or suspend the availability of any utilisation or issuance pursuant to the Facility when conditions precedent are not fulfilled. This relates to an operational element of the facility, not the right to enforce rights in court and was a term which the parties have contracted for. S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 Conclusion [74] Premised on my findings above, it is the judgment of this court that Evergreen has failed to prove its claim on a balance of probabilities and the whole of its claim is dismissed. Costs of RM 150,000.00 is ordered for EXIM. 18 December 2023 ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD Judge Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) Counsel: For the Plaintiff: Hairulallias Bin Shaari & Surya Putra bin Mohamed Taulan (Messrs Putra Taulan & Faiq Azizan) For the Defendant: Karlos Israphil Bendlin (Messrs. Amin Karlos) S/N UWIALQtqQ0mA1DozpI7x8A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

KB-29NCC-30-03/2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMANRESORTS WORLD AT SENTOSA PTE LTDPENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMANLIM AH TEE

Appeal against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar - dismissed the JD’s application to set aside the JC’s application for substituted service dated 12.5.2022. The JD’s application to set aside the application was premised solely on the ground that the JC failed to comply with Practice Direction 1 of 1968 which regulate substituted service applications. Appeal dismissed.

19/12/2023

YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b5898c8b-35e8-48de-8428-119579e32eb6&Inline=true

19/12/2023 08:46:21 KB-29NCC-30-03/2022 Kand. 55 S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i4yJteg13kiEKBGVeeMutg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal xa-29ucc—3u—u3/2022 Kand. 55 19/12/2023 08:46:21 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SUNGAI PETANI DALAM NEGERI KEDAN DARUL AMAN DALAM FERKARA KEEANKRAPAN no: KB-29NCC-30-03/2022 EERKENAAN: LIM AH TEE (No K/P: 5104416-a1.555:) EX PARTE: RESORTS worm: AT sEmosA we LTD [Singapore us» no: znosazsnnj GROUNDS or JUDGMENT (Enclosure 42b Introduction 1 Enclosure 42 15 the Judgment Demor (JD)'s appea\ agamsc the decision of the learned Senvor Assmanu Reglshav (SAR) dated 17 9 2023 The learned SAR d1sm\ssred|heJD‘s apphcauan cu set was me JC's apphcafion (or sunsmuzed servms dated 12 5 2022 [Enclosure 25] 2 Aflev careml cansmeranon ollhe cause papers and submissions by parties, «ms Calm msmrsssa me apnea! The vauawmg rs the reasons «or the decision. !Nw0‘1Jrtv13k\EKEGV-eMLl1E 'NnL¢ sum ...r.., M“ ... we In M, ... Wu.u., cum nnumzul VI ermine perm Enclosure 2: 3 In Enclosure 25, the m prayed rm an order rmer aha that — “Permahanan umuk Penyarnparan Ganli pada 1252022 yang drberrkan ererr Mahkamah Tmggl Maraya dr Sungal veranr d|kelepIkan' 4 The JD‘s apphcalmn to set aside me apprreenon rs premreea sorely on me grounds that me Judgmenk crecmor (.10) «area tn comply wrm Practice Drrecriorr 1 M1968 wrncn regulate subsmuled service apphcallorrs The JD oonrterms that umzrary In me Pracnca nrrec1ren_ the JC's «rs: attempt at persanar service was affected on a public halxday 5 The m cued lhe varrawrng cases «a suppnrl rns arguments — (i) Re Ans hm Massou ex gate UOL Faclnring sun BM [1993 3 MLJ 358, and (u) Poh eark Lye v Amfraser Seourmes Pie Ltd 2015 1 ML! m. e The JC refuted me JD‘s arguments ana submmedlI1atEnc\osule 23 was med as an anermougm lo oeunler me .|C‘s avermems rn merr amdavrn dated 5 5 2023 [Enclosure 27] r e mar the order (m subsmulsd service dated 1:: 5 2022 cannot be chauenged couacerauy at me crednor's pemrorr stage 0! me bankruptcy pmceedtngs Frinsip undang-undzllg cerpak a Mahkamah vm menenmapakax pnnsxp undang—undang yang dlhuraxkan da\am kes Gan Vaok Chm [P 5. Aug v. Lee mg Chm Q Lee Tack Sang 3. on 2og§ 2 MLJ 1 dx mana Steve shim HESS merwalakan an 10 — “M our new. um Omm av Ag .1 m clung cn caus nan clcarly homo In mind on mm: mum ohppnllmn mm... Inn, In d-bmunu wmmu or no: In: lnal cum ma mm u M: dsclsion or finding annually on 01: bani: at an nluvinl law Ind/av an established m. In m dmng‘ me Cuurl L11Apyell was ymcuy emmed to examme me nmoess M evamalmn Mme evwdenez by We (ml mull enemy, the phrase ‘lrvwmcwenulbdlmal avhrecwanon Mevn1enae' mevew relaxed m such a prunes: ms ws raflu15d m |h| Gaul! ac Appaavs vevsmemem man . judge wha was rammed In .a,umm= upon . dwswla must arm: at nu «mum on an Esme cl Inn by assessmg‘ weighing mud, (or guod Kansans‘ mthar acceplmg ov Iejecnng me whole 01 any pan cl lhe ewaence placed heme mm The Conn 04 Applal «mar rellavalad me pmcxpne t>enl:a\ lo aI7De|\alz wmervenlnm. 2 mm . decrsmn irrwsd u by . (ml mun mmuun ‘ud\cIa\ appveuanon ov me e-meme rmgm be se| HAM: on appenl This 1: canswslzm wmh mg astabhsncd pm-ry wvonu test‘ IVI Dlpalln Mahkamah 9 lsu pakok yang rayuan ml adalah same ada Pliimhl lelah menyaman plhak yang sepalumya unluk kemalangan yang dlalammya sm Mymnnumzxacvn aw -W. sum rumhnv wm ». um law may m. .m.u-y mm dnunvmnl «. muus mm 10 11 12. 13. 14 sm Mymnnumzxacvn aw -W. sum rumhnv wm ». um law may m. .m.u-y mm unaumnl «. muus mm Devenaan Iekah mengemukakan kelevangan kukuh bahawa mnggungawau mengawalseha Tempal Kemalangan tersebm (elan dlserahkan kepada Konlvaklor berkenian yang memalankan keqa—kena penyewenggman jalan Kexemngan um lldak msangkax oleh Plaimw Dalam keatiaan um perganlungan Plaunmkepaaa suval yang dlkeluarkan oxen Jabalan Ker]: Raya Negen Kedah [EksIbn HH1, mls 45 — 46 RR] semina- maza Iidak munasabah. Mahkamah I lelah menellh a\asan Denghakxman HMS terpdajar dan berpandangan behau xelah membuat kepulnsan yang balm berrandaskan pnnsnp undangunaang dan lakta kes mi Mahkamah W setup: dengan dapatan HMS Ierpskmar bahawa 7 - kawaian kemalangan mm Mu lelih dilemn kawmssha mm plhak kmI|rakIuv am. rm ma. Emerpnse Apalah laui pmpk nu dam W. keselnmamn (ehhplm dunsuranikan clan konltakmv (ersehm m. memhiwa maksud bahawa vlhak kanlraklor um telah bevsedua umuk menanslamvg kamglan sekwanya hevvaku Eva-spa yang hdakdunglm Fak|or»hktov ml ma‘: man melepaskan Delendnn sehlglw plhak mans fliflpldi apup. hablhn yang berlaku kemna sudah ad: pwhak Iim yang bevsema unmk me».ng.;..w apnpa kamglan iekwanya ads‘ Dapalan im disokong oleh lapnran pchs Kanlraklor Iersebul dan kenynlaan bahawa men Plamm yang le\ah amubungu olsh pmak msurans 15. HMS hdak cerkmlav dalam ksputusan b u den dalam keadaan W, uada sebarang a\asan unmk Mahkamah mu menggangu arau merlyakses kepulusan benau Kepulusan Mahkamah 16. Eemasarkan a\asan W, Mahkamah um menoxak rayuan Flalnlfl dengan kas RM 3000 no lenakm kepada n Mokalur Eenankn 14 Dwsember 2023 %. Narkunava ysun reson Persuruhiaya Kehskv an Mahkaman Tmggv Malaya av Sungax Felam Feguam hagi pihak Pmyu Suhailah Saad Tecuan Tengku Hezrul .1 Partners No MA, Lorong ELM 1/1 Bandar Laguna Merbnk uaaoo Sungal Pelam, Kedah Pnguam bagi plhak Respollden Nurmana Zams\ Azahar Tetuan Zalnal Azahar 3. Co No 215‘ Tmgkal 2, Jalan Mawsr 2, Taman Pekan aam oaooo Sungax Peqam, Kedah m »0yJmumEKaGv-ummu Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be uud In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm 7 The .16 d nguishad me aumormes relred on by the JD and referred re the lnHawmg cases — (1) Develogmerrg g Qgmmerual Bank and v Asgatrs Com sun BN1 & error and another aggear 1995 :1 MLJ 472 EN771 iv) Malayan Banking and v. Mahmaod zuam H Muhd Noor 2001 sou 171, and (In) Kamaruddm hm Mahmed v gnned Moror Warks [M Sdn Ehd 19e2 1 ML! 126 rn arsmrssrng the applicatron, the learned SAR nerd — Mahkamahmenmakumprmn . den Zsdengnnkus Secala Hngkasrvyar Mm: mam: No 4 Tanun 196S‘shou\d nu| ha .ppr..a arm», um mums mulzndls Ihe Van Meach muatlovr‘, Koh rrmng Kuang V umrea Mamyin aanxrng Corp ar-1|1994)z Mm 509 Mahkaman rm ndak aapa| mermar secavang mmpamran Kepefluin um. Amalan uecava Iubstanhve. Mihkamah mandapah sememangnyi Ieldwat 2 kuruunau yang dnbum kg was nengmnzwg pangnakrman nan mmrr (anapa penyampa/an yang arrarrkan Meh JO memmrukkan dengan rams mam psnghulnagn psnghakrman rnengelak am dnvvpadl puwamparan Selam nu‘ Mada psranggaran Kaedih ms K.aadalI—Kaedah Vnsoivensr zmr Pennlnh penylmpalan gann Man drbenknn din seuhan talah drlaksanakan dengan sewarrmya men KC selan derrgan permhh Ielsehul - sm rlyMnn13krEKaGv- aw «mu S-rm murmur MU ». M w mm m. mtgwruuly mm; a...u..r «. muns Wm Principles of law This Cuun was nilnaiul ol the aenlec principle mac an appeal againsl lne decision of me learned SAR re Judge in chambers under 0 59 Rules or Caurl 21:12 is dune by way a1 a leheanng :2! me applrcalcn §e ma Jaya Sdn Bhd v Fembenaan Keng Ting saban) Sdn and 1994 2 MLJ 97 G1 105 1994 2 cu 716, dan Tuan Hal Ahmed Abdul Rannran y, Arab-Malafilan Finance Bemad 1991; 1 MLJ 30:1 :5 1995 1cL.l 241; Enclosure 42 10 11 12 Both games repeated inerr argunrenls var Enclosure 28 Rule 109 insolvency Rules 2017 governs auhsiilirlec service and provides mm 11 me Court is semslled by affidavll nr clner evidence on cam lhal prompt personal service cannoi be atiecled, lne court may order substituted service There IS a plelhora oi cases wnloh deal Wllh ine argument regarding noncompliance 01 Practice Dllediorl 1 at «sea. The niglresl authanhes have consistently nelc manhe prame dlreclmn “shank! not be applied blindly but mulandls mulandls the (acts of each situation“ 1l<on Tneng maria V Unlled Malayan Eanking corg BM 1994 4 cu 455 NM Bank Bhd V Macr Galaxy sun Bhd & Ors 2005 5 CLJ 73) 13 14. 15 16. In applying forlhe subslituled semce Mme bankruptcy name‘ ms JC‘S Process server averted that - 4.) ne attempted service onne BN on 3.4 2022 anhe JD‘s last known address um mere was no me home and me premxses was locked‘ on an appmntmenHel1er dated a 4 2oz: was sent lo we JD we regislered pas: on 13 4.2022 mornnng the mcnan the pmses server wifl aflen servxoe on 15 A 2022‘ and (n) ne attempted semce av the an on 13 4.2022, was wormed me JD was nut name, he waned buk ma JD am not rsmm This court dues not accept me JD's contention mac me firs! wsn which comcmea mm a State puhhc nahday is m nsew msumcienz so as to render me attempted sennoe bad The JC men Ioucmea up win an appomtment wener |n me JD's correm address, wmch Ieacer was not returned by me pascal authormes and made a second anernpr at se ‘nus coun findsmal |heve wis a genume allemmlu afleci personal semee ot (he EN more we JG resorted ta applying lor suhsllluled serwce 17 True. court was notes that Enclosure 28 was clearly an afterthought which was Ned afler the JC potntea uul ms favlure to set astae the ordev tor substttuted servtoe In thew amdavtl oppasmg ms apphcation to set aside the crednors petition Decision 16 For the tategoing reams, the Home at appeat agamst the ovder oi the teamed SAR dismtssmg Enchzsure 2e tans Costs ts affixed at RM subject tn attocamr Dated 14 Deoemtzer 2023 Narkunavath ndaresnn Jumctat Comtmssioner Htgh Cour! Mataya at Sungat Pecan. Far Jndgmunt Crlditor Tan Pheng chew Messrs SKRWE Levet at wtsma Uoa Damansara, 50‘ Jatan Dungun amt Damansarat 50490 Kuata Lumpur m tl‘1JttV13ktEKEGVlIMfl1fl s Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be uud In may he mV§\nIH|Y mm mm... VI HVLING wtm For Jndgmnnl umor Kuldsep Singh em Messrs Kuldeep Smgh em, .1 Jena :2. Co No 4991‘ Tmgkat 1, man Kampung Eenggall 12200 aunemunn, Pulau Fmang DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA on SUNGAI PETANI DAIAM NEGERI KEDAH DARUL AMAN, MALAVSIA RAVUAN SIVIL no KB 2 07/2023 ANTARA HASRI am HANIF [No K/P: 720102-02-6785) DAN YANG DIPERTUA MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SUNGAI PETANI RESFCINDEN ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan 1 unmk Kemudahan myukan, pmaK—p|hak akan dlruwk seperllmana Mukan mereka an Mahkamah Sesyen 2 lm adarah rayuan Plavrmv Ierhadav ksputusan Hakxm Mahkamah Sesyen berlankh 17 7 2023 yang Ielah membenarkan permahonan Delendan unluk memhatalkan mnlman Plalrmi dv bawah A18 K 1e11)(a), nu) alau (a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 !Nw0‘1Jrtv13k\EKEGV-eMLl1E W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; mm. VI muus NM! 3 Selelah menexm kesemua suralcara rayuan nu dan muahan keduar dua pmak, Mahkamah memuluskan untuk menolak rayuan lersebut dengan kos Berikul adalah alasan kepulusan «ersebuc Rayuzn Pemmhnnan Delendan dihawah A16 k. 19(1) KM 2012 4 Defendan memonon membataxkan lumutan P\am(If an bawah A 1: k153(1)KM 2m2 acas alasan wnl dan pemyalaan tuntman Waxntw‘ (V) max mendedahksn kausa undakan yang munasaban, (xi) mengalbkan, remeh dan/alau menyusahkan, atau (Hi) sualu Denyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah 5 Da\am alvdavut sokangan mereka, Defemian menyalakan — U) Plamm lelah memmakan Guzman No KB—A5.‘5KJ—Z70— 12/2022 lerhadap mereka berhubung suatu xemawangan man raya yang berlaku peas 1 1 202a :1! Jam: Taman Semarak‘ Sungal Pelam (Tampa! Kemawanganp, my Plalnm lelah melanggar suam bonggol man yang dakam pembmaan yang menyebabkannya Ievbabas dan (enaluh dan mmasIka\ flan axmannya, F\amuf msngalanu kecederaan pavah (In) Wawnllf mendakwa kemalangan (ersebul adalah dlsebabkan sepemmnya oleh kecuman Ddendan dalam mengambul langkah-Wangkah pengawalan den penjagaan a. Iempat kemalangan, (N) pada mesa material‘ Temps! Kemalangan nu m hawah kawalsena Dy: Rum Enlerpnse (Kontrakmrj yang Ielah auarmk unluk merualankan kenarkerja penyelenggaraan Jalan [Emma Mz—2 mls 2a 7 aa Rekud Rayuan (RRH, M seleklh mmakwumkan berkenaan kemalangan tersebul, Konlrakor larssbul Ielah membual Iapuran puhs unmk Iujuan urusan Insurans [Ekslbwt MZ—3 m/S 40 RR]. dan (my pmak penlla Insurans Ielahpun menghubungl Islen Plamm‘ berhubung kemalangan (ersebul Plamtfl pma menegaskan |empaI kemalangan lersebul :11 bawah sellaan Defendan [Ema-4 HH1, ms 45 - as HR] F\amtI1 berpen an sekiranya sehaan Tempe! Kemmangan flu dlsevshkan olsh Defendan kepada Kanmkm, maka Defendan sewqamya membawa masuk Kontraktur Iersebut sebagaw pihak kenga dalam (Indakannya Kedua nmak fe\ah meruyuk Mahkamah Kepada nas undang— undang berkauan AJE k 19(1) KM nan berhujah selaras dengan pendman masmgmaslng

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

DJ-83-964-09/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH YEE YEE SOE

Principle of Sentencing-Consideration-Immigration Act 1959- Section 6(1)(c) of the same act- Mitigation Factors-Aggravating Factors-Public Interest-Plea of Guilt-Rampancy of such case

19/12/2023

Tuan Mohd Izdham Naim bin Che Ani

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7eba68dc-da40-487d-933f-704b81cc0f00&Inline=true

Mahkamah Majistret Pasir Mas, Kelantan Darul Naim Page 1 of 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI PASIR MAS DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA DJ-83-964-09/2023: PENDAKWARAYA -lwn- YEE YEE SOE dibicarakan bersama DJ-83-984-10/2023: PENDAKWARAYA -lwn-THU ZAR WAI GROUND OF JUDGMENT 1. These are my grounds for my decision for this case. The charge meted against the Accuseds as follows:- Bahawa kamu pada 13.09.2023 jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang, bertempat di Tepi Jalan Kampung Bukit Lata Jeram Perdah, Pasir Mas, di dalam Daerah Pasir Mas, di dalam Negeri Kelantan, telah didapati berada di Malaysia tanpa sebarang pas perjalanan yang sah, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan dibawah seksyen 6(1)(c) Akta Imigresen 1959/63 dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 6(3) Akta yang sama. 2. For these cases, the Deputy Public Prosecutor move to this court be heard together. The charge was read by Burmese interpreter, Mr. Than Tin. Both pleaded guilty on the charge and understood it consequences. 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. See New Tuck Shen v PP [1982] 1 MLJ 27. Having due regards to rampancy of such crime where the accused(s) as illegal immigrant has wildly entered Malaysia, a custodial sentence will be such a reminder for those not to break our law. Thus, public interest is best served here when a deterrent sentence is given. This Court find the Accused(s) guilty of the charge and sentenced them for 5 months imprisonment effective sentence date. This sentence is properly recorded. DATED 17 DECEMEBER 2023 ……………………………………... MOHD IZDHAM NAIM BIN CHE ANI Magistrate Magistrate’s Court Pasir Mas, Kelantan Darul Naim Decision: 7 November 2023 Parties:- Deputy Public Prosecutor: Ms. Mahfuzah Hamizah Mohd Arif / The Accused(s) CRIMINAL LAW- Principle of Sentencing-Consideration-Immigration Act 1959- Section 6(1)(c) of the same act- Mitigation Factors-Aggravating Factors-Public Interest-Plea of Guilt-Rampancy of such case 19/12/2023 10:08:46 DJ-83-964-09/2023 Kand. 11 S/N 3Gi6fkDafUiTP3BLgcwPAA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal DJ—83—9Ed—D€ 2023 Kand. 11 nm:nM=gsns1 ma a.a.s a<.a.aa.a mm Nmm mu/zcza ,2-as an DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISIREI nu PASIR ms DALAM MEGERI KELANTAN DARUL mm: MALAVSIA D4-auaaansaznz ENDAKWARAVA -lwn- vs: vs: so: mmcmm heunmn DJ-33-§M—In/202:: PEMDAKWARAVA -Iwn»TMlJ um wm enouuo onuncuzur 1 These are my qmundsmr my decasaen ma mas case The chavge meted agamsl Ihe Aaauaeas as VaHawx— Banaw: mm»: 12 1792022 yam mam kwlrlv szunmng mmaaa .a raw ./alan Kama-mg Bmar L Jaum M.» Pun Mas m .1 nm Daemn Pun Mas mlalam mm mm." aa.a .mm..a... m Mmysa: not saw-ng Dlspflnnrnnnn wry s.» aw»-g flemmm am aaaa nrelamnxan “mm mam gehyan smml Mu: Wwesm assmm bdelvallmkmw ma." smaaa firm AMI Vmflsnma 2 Far these cassa. ma Deputy Pubhc Fmsecmm move lo mas onuvl be heard lngelher The charge was am by Burmese mlevpveler Mr naaaanaa Bum paamu gmlly an ma charge and understand an cnnsequenoes Undev paaaacapae M senlencmg aa :5 onnsadeved alter considering an elhev Vacls such as am. place me name M In: case and vampanty M such cnme See New mu Shen :4 rr [19432] 1 ML.A 27 Havmg due regard: tn vampancy M such cvame when lhe .accused(s) as mega! aaamaagaam has wfldly enlened Mmaysua a custndm semen-ze wan be such a vemamenm Ihme ml to mask om aaw Thus. pubhc mteresl as best sewed have when a delevvenl semen-ze as qwan mas Cnuvl Vmd ma Accusedqsj gmlly av Ihe chavge and sentenced lhem M 5 months ampaasaaamam efleclwe sentence dale naas sentence as property vecmded nnzn 1 7 nscsmsasn 2n2a «gang» Mono mm»: um um r:nE mu Magasuaaa Magliwatn a CmmPai|v Mas Kaaanaaa nama Namv Damsmn 7 Nvvlmhev 202: PI Deputy Puo/4c Pmsnculor M: Mahluzzn Hannah Mum! Am /Tlvg A1:r:us9r.1!s/ cmumu uw Pnvmulral Eenlenrxng Cunnnerabmv Vmnl/gvaM:nAz! V959 Sacbarv smvcr Mme Esme ac» Mrbgahon Faclms Agyvavamw Fanvms maa wares! Plus .» Gum Ramvancy almch aasa Page 1 M 1 5w Msaavxnaruavwaawcwm ma Sum mmhnv wm be used a mm as. aaaaaa.aa-a Mam; nnmmnnl vn mum wrm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22IP-39-07/2023

PLAINTIF TECK HUAT (K.L) COMPANY SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) OBH TRADING SDN. BHD. 2. ) OOI BENG HUAT FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.

Application for summary judgment for trademark infringement, passing off and unlawful interference with trade (“Summary Judgment Application”); and application to strike out the Defendants’ counterclaim to invalidate trademark (“Striking Out Application”) - applications allowed.

19/12/2023

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=27f43d24-9ff6-47d8-9af9-0dbad10cb0b7&Inline=true

19/12/2023 08:55:36 WA-22IP-39-07/2023 Kand. 53 S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JD30J/af2EeaQ260Qywtw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal vm—22n>—39—u7/2023 Kand. 53 19/12/2013 29; IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAVA IN I)! KUALA LUMPUR cIvI; §UIT No wAr22IP<w Imus BETWEEN TECK MUAT (K.L) COIIIPANV SDN BHD ...PLAlNT|FF AND 1. OBH TRADING SDN BM) 2. (ml EENG HUAT Foon INDUSTRIES SDN EHD ...uEFENnAN1s JUDGMENT A. Introduction 1 Tm: Judgmenl deals wum mo appIIca|IorIs med by me PIaIn|Ii1, namely‘ up The P|aIn|Ifl‘s applIcaIIon In Encmsure 7 (or summary ,uagmenI agaIrIs| me Defendants (or I|s acuun «or vademark Inlnngamenl, passing M1 and unlawful Imerlsrenne wxth trade (”SummaryJudgmen\App|Ic.aIIorI and In) The I=IaIm.rrs applrcahon IR Enclnsure 1: lo slnke out me De(eI-Idanls coun|en:laIm lo mvandane me I=Ia-nms Iradsmark[’S1vIkmg om Appncauan‘ ). W 1 .1. 15 5 Salient facts ms achon mvclves a pmducl knvwn as senea Cured Prune (‘Plamlvifs Proouor), rs manufactured by a company m Tawmn cafled Sun Foods lndusmal Company Limwted (‘Sun Foods“) smoe lrom around 1970, the Plairrm has been Sun Foods‘ sole and/or emmsrve dislnbulcr Io pmmo|e. dlsmbute and/or seH me P\a\'nufY‘s Produd Pursuant to that appomrmsnr. In 2013 the Plairmfl applved [or and suoaessmuy regrsnered Trademark No. 2u13m4as4 In mass 29 (or me P\amufl's Produd (‘F\amMi‘s Trademark") class 29 vs rorsaxrsd cured prune There is no evuaenoe at Sun Foods ever having oqeded |u me Pbanrmfl regrstsnng the Psamms Trademark The P|amnfFs Trademark remains VI come arm expves on 28 10 2033, and looks Hke «ms The packaging oi the F\amm'{s Pmducl beanng me Plarnmrs Trademark looks hks ms run 1 M15 24 in Low Chi Vang (ua Reynnx Fanichom Indullllol) v Low cni Hand G. And: [min] t MLJ 175, tne Federal coun neid inat ioi trademark ininngemeni. tne ptainiiii has in Drove (ii That ne owns a valid iiadeinant. (ii) That the iradeinaik was used in me mums M trade wixndiit consent, and tiiii Tnat the uniawtui usage oi lhe trademark owned by niin nad caused deception I contusion arwng tne Dmspedive custaineis 25. mnd lhal. ridin the salient tents tnati nad set uul eai-iiei, the Pieintifi nas suuoessfuiiy esiabtisned that both or the neiendants have ininnged tne Piaintiirs Trademark and mat ine Piainiiii is entitled lo summary iudgnieni tar iriis Claim ullrademark iniiingemeni 25 As agatrlsl tne I“ Deiendani, me packaging lor the product wnicri the Pieiniilt bougni vmin me 1*‘ Deiendeni we tne Piaintivrs Yrademark, and there was no evidence wnatsoevei that tne 1*‘ Delendam had tne Plain|ifl‘s consent in dd so 27 As against the 2"‘ oeiendant. me packaging tor me product wnicn iris Piainiifi uuugni «min lhe I“ Deiendani bun‘. a hamiode which belonged to the 2"” Deiendani, and tne 2"“ Defendant dtd neiiner dispuIei|or1raverseil F-gt 1| at xs ‘ SIN lD:mJMZEnD1WQyWM “Nair s.n.i n-vihnrwm be ii... M may i... nflmnnflly mi. dnunvinnl n. nF\uNG WM! 28 I xnereiure find that me Plamufl has Indeed eslabhshed a case for summary mgmenc 01 ms darm lur trademark mlringemenl Summary judgment [or passing olf 29 In Ruskin Ind Colman Froducls Ltd v Harden Inc and calms, [1990] 1 All ER :7: Lord Ollvev oi Aylmenon said‘ we law 0/ passmg on can be summansvd In one slvon‘ 997-973: pramisrlron, no man may pass oflms goods as those aranwm Mare spemfioie/Vy A may 12: zxpressod m terms av ma slemenls winch the plalrmlr/H mu an acum naa m mm m order In mccaod. mass an mm m numbcr Frm, he may aslanrlslv n gamma or rapuulion ulramud m my goods at xarwcws wham ht auppm n ma mmd aflhu purchaslrvv nub»: lzyussoanlron mm me Msntlfyrnv ‘gem’ lwhelher u census swpryo/a brand name a a hsda uaamm-on or m. mamauar Iealme: of /abellmg av puchymyl under winch ms pamm/at goods or surwxs am ocrma la the palms, am that me gel-up rs rnvgnrsvd by me am: as msllmmve spemam ovma ptamulfs good: 0. an/mes Suomt he mustflamarvsbrzm . rrlarapraurvllmrl by ma dsfmdlnl m ma publrc [whether or rm! meanmmur; ludmg or hkoly to Mad ma won: In mm ma! gouds or serum aflunad by mm are ma goods a, sermons 5/ M: p/amm Whether the pubic .3 aware M me p/smurf: nlsnllfy as the mamauum or summer or ma goods or services rs rmmatwal as lung as may are rdecmived mm a particular sown wmcn IS m /52! 1». plan!!!” For sxamms yr me mm rs amuymned m rely on a ya/[mu/at mm rmma m purchasing goods ofa pamcmar dascrrphon .: manor: not M an Nu! mam rs mm or M: pub//c nwavvnsss o( the ndenhly mna pmwmmonm mm Hume mm he must demonstrate mama suflers or m a cum (must anron. maths rslrkolytu suflsldamags by mum! at ma srruneous aeoer cc-vgemiered by the dz/Efldflflrs Pan :1 ans am 1n:vn.Hm-zzuamwaywnu «mm. saw Illfl IVWW .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max mvxrepresenlshcn mar ma some nlme defendant’: good: or services rs ma same as me source ollhuse olfevsd Dy ma p/amllfl so Yhese statements have found favounn Ho lack sien 3 Dr: V Ram: Research ubomnnurn s. A a. Anov [2012] 5 CL.) 645 (CA). onus Experl Whlte Sdn Bhd v Nor Vanni btAdom 5 Ann: [2022] 1 ML: :7 (Fe) and skywona Naldings Sdn and 5. Ors v Skywurld Davulopmonl Sdn and I Am)! [2022] 5 EU 74 (FC) 31 Thus, la prove passing 01!, me Plannhfl must (w) es|abhsh a goodmu ar repmauan In me guods or semces ll pvovides: [nj demnnslrale mvsrepresenla\Ion(s) by me Defendant winch .5 hke\y to lead me pubhc in neneve that me goods nu prawaes are those nl the mainurrs, and 4."; asvablush mat damage has or wm likely be caused Geaamu or Regulat n 32 \n Yong su Fun L Anor (Ila Perindusman Makannn & mnuman Layang-Layang) v Syarikal Zamanl H) Yamin Sdn Bhd 5 Anor[201Z] 1 ML! 5:35, we Court at Appeal revened to The commissioners of Inland Revenue v winner 5 K30‘: Maryann, Lnnnud man AC 211 m wfuch Lord MacNaghten defined ‘goodwulf m ms way. mp u M 25 IN ./Danmrzzuanisnuymu -we Sum ...n.. WW he used m mm we nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII JVLING pm was: /5 gooawll/7 Ir 1: a thing wry nasy to dnsmbe‘ wry dvrfcult Ia define u .s the own and ammage ov me good name, maulubon. and onnnzchm on business. n .5 m. attmci/Vs rm mm. mm m nuslnm. n ls ms ans mg wmm msmrgmslns m old emoumsa mm.“ from a rvlw busmass at :1: law start 1»; goodwill 5/ a Dusmisx mus! cmsnlle hum . pamoulur oonm or mum‘ 33 Man! Milnk lshak JCA, who dahveved me 1uugmen| or the court, lnen 5a: "Four drxwmvnv ream: o/gommu may bu ma- (5) me: gaoawm Is my benefit added m the busmsss Ihmugh exlenswe kadmg apemhnns wmm amacts cuaom (a) max uadg mark 0! gal up .5 the navy» andmoma mat srgnmes. mdlcalu and zdsnlmea me aoamv/u and ma mm». (c) Mal gamfwrfl vs cvutod lhruugh and bymsani altradmg aamm and m; that the more axwrmw my trading acn-«me: are ma. mus! messanrymum sac and pmrnamn, M: mtn value mm wowd be Lmnchod mm goodm/I 34. In emu wnlu, supra, Zabanah Mehd FCJ said. ‘Gondwrll or a busmls: r: .1. ulsbhshod mpulanon mm. m Mgardod as a qummra um and calwlalad an pm pm. vi/Mt when we business 5 ma: Gnoawvfl rs ufliclvnd tu a me or a pamculfir trade ms mgamea as pmvenr nam Lani unmuy m ma vageumzs 35 I find man, by me lollowmg laclors, me P goodwill or -enmalmn ln me Pleimllrs Pmdu . (l) (N) (ill) (Iv) Gommlssloners of lnlm Rwunlaa v Muller 5 Gas Malvarme Llmlled[790V]AC men; 225 gave a aesemm of Gooawl/l‘ss 'Gl:adwrllmg~dedas pvoptflyllu no melsrlmg sncepl m clwmsmun mm mew. busmvsz arcs!/lug /rlllmmnllncllan Vurldwslznd (ha em in melude wflulevel adds value to : Dusvlls: by new of emu name and Irplliumwl cwmectlnn llllladuman In aid meemm; am egoea abullce Imm uomptullnrl or W 57 mm mm; and mm Hwy :2. amars Whmh flu nut em le me has eslabllshad a It has oeen Sun Foods‘ sole and/or exclusive hula! Io pnmmle, dislribme and/or sell me Plalnliffs Fmduct since |he ms. Iha Plalntllfs Tzeaemerk has been raglslared lnr |erl years; ll has a llsl ol elmesl soo mslnmetsllelallersl whu ellher eensume Ihe Pleimlws Pmducl lhemselvas or relall mam to me general puma Thai wlde and exlanslve ongamg network of dislnbullnn neeeesanly Indicates lluel Ihe Plalnllfl wnuld have ashbllshod e goodwlll ov vepulallun ln me Plainlirrs Producl: me Devlendams dld rlol aeauee any evmenoe lo challenge or negate ma Plemmn e goodwlll ov vepulallnn m the Plalnliffs Pmeucx, and me 1; at 15 (v) the lact that the Defendants were unabashedly prepared to trade tn the same goods wnn the Plal that may tdd acknowledged the Plainltlrs a goodwlll or repulannn m the Plaintiffs Product s Trademark shows Mlsgegrggnlatlon 35. lfind lnattne Defendants’ conduct m selltng and lnlendlng to sell me lrllnnging Product omslllules a mlsrepreseniztlon by the nelendsnts ltksly to lead the public to beheve that the goods it provldes are mesa Mlhe Plamtiws 37. The Defendants‘ blatant conduct of uslrtg the Plalntrlve Trademark on me lnlnngmg Product could only have been calcalated la mislead the Imde and the palm at large to ma nellal lhal the lnlnnging Product VS amllaced, assoctaled or related to me Plalntilr Damage has or wlll be caused pg fig mggsentatlen as In Vang sze Fun, Abdul Mallk lshak JCA said on paragraph 240 el the Judgment). ‘The law l5 wflled Actual dlsmagv mm was pmvvl n u summon! 10 saw a pmoamlvry amamaae tn mu 7bgBfl1,lhE and amp BulnmLtI1 and Sllawzmlgs Ltd wsollmgersn and Chamaagne Lansan pee E! as [V975] we 79 lmmledlaltly comes in ma mmml. There Euddey L./hadlmstoayzIp95a(merwcn mg. is M 25 ‘ sm luwdlmzaamwawnw ma. s.n.l nuvlhnrwlll a. a... w may he aflnlnallly mm: dnuuvlnnl VII mam ml n rs vmllsettledtlml a ptzmumm a passmv owaam. due: mtlvave m pm: me: he has acmafly xmvumd namely: by lots Mbusmess or w my om way A pvablbdrlyold-mafia ,5 enough nu: ma mu-Int mm.» «mm mus] be damage m mm m m trade mumm mu V5 to W dam-ga 1.; hrs mm/r m respccmimal rraae or mm; Gmwmx s wuvvwwrd: mum ' Conclu ass ofi 39 Based an the evudenoe. I therefore mm that me Malnuf! has Indeed esvabhshed a case lav summary judgmenlol ns claumvorpassmg ofl F. Summary judgmum lo: unlamul interference with trade 40 m H 1. R Jarmson mulayslu) Bhd v H a RJohnson mes u a Anal [1995] 2 cL.I 531 Zakana v 4 (as he men was) sad. 1: one person delnbevale/y mlefiares with ma Ivads at Business 0! mm”, and dads so by umamm means ma! r: by an ac! mm. he rs A04 al may 4» mmlml man ha .5 mm; un/awm/Lv, mu though he does not prnaum m mdum any amual mm arconuw Torqusyriotnl Co m V Cousms 5 Ors[1969l 2 En ms, 13v pcrlwd Dwmmg MR 41 In the Conn oVAupea\decIs\onmU1e skyworld Duvulapm-nx sin and v Skywnrld Holdings sun and 1. on [2020] 3 MLJ 294‘ Kamaludm Md Said JCA sa' ‘We agreed mm the p/amms lubvvlfssmn that me mu wamwrs have esvsbnshad meat clawvfsfi forvade mark rninngernervl andmrpassrng DH n rs a natural mnsequenc: Ins! ma run or unlawful lrmxrerervce wllh mas mu also be made nut mew cm». Sang ax. ;=«mm Tradmg co; Fun :7 cl 15 V Melmm: Vnlagvated System Sd/v arm 5. Amx[2l717] 7 ML./ 1 al p :5 {para 45;; Tim Hugh Cami has relcvred lo the wse a/Mngnawfiy Enlerwlst sun EM V Soon Lrzn Hack (sale prcprremr ol the /um pmamme Audra A CaIAA=cas&oms Enlrrpnse 1204791 3 Mm 525‘ a Cu 23:: mm mm mm mm was copy!/ghl mbmgtmont by the do/endam and hunts mam rs urvlamm mtsrvsrcnuv mm was and wsmess me wrporate dellndanls‘ mtarmon .s not relevant m cases when Ivsds rmrk mmrvgemen! and passrng olhs mm/vet! (Exoelsiur P19 ua V Emma: span (5) Pk! Lm[V9B6]1ML./ :30)‘ 42 In waw of my nnmngs man me P\amWs have established me Delendants‘ hzbmty «or Imdemark mnngemem and passmg on, I find 0121 me P\aIn|Ifl's claim agamsl the Delendanls far the can 0! umawm mleflerenoe wnn trade s also made um 43 I a\so find Ina! neither me Detenoe nor the Amdavm me Dever-dams Med to oppose me F\amufl‘s Appncauon raise any mable Issue to vmnzm the d|sm|ssa\ ol me P|aIn|iff‘s Apphcauon. striking out nukndanw canmerclalm 44 The relvef that the Delendants oounlerdanm tor are set out an paragraph 34 cHhe<r joint Defence and Counlevdavn, as Vo\lows' ‘{3} P/smlrfls Trademark m be dec/ared ml/SM where the Irademsrk rs regvsleved m mm or wctron 23, man spccmna/Iy momma bur not nmusa m subsechans 2.7{!}(u)anI1 22(5)ya) 57 ms rm zaw. nu mammrs Trademark ,5 mm ammm. cflavactirpursulnttu "mu zJ(mo7 ul the M 2019 al the me of 5/my m. u... u .1 Is annfiwtrm iw raatslradon al ma lrndsrvluriz and at mu rm. 0! commencement a/pmaaeamgs agamst me Delendants are not drsnnnwe or the Plarnmfs goods or mucus. (c) pram n dammed u no! . aona rm pmpmrnr of the mmmrs Yradomurk pursuuvl 14 uclron mm or me rm 2:219 17 5/Iematfvary undur section 25 olmo Mpceled Trade Marks An 1975 I‘1He TMA 1976'] at I00 nmu alappficalxwv and /2915»-alron mm has/vnamz (4; Haman nmmm m be aeaam: mvaua where mete rs an mm trademark mm sccllon 2:‘ man svecvfica//y am not hmrtod to wbncnon um om. TMA2l71varnA5mIllvq7y my sochovv 1911; MM: mu ms sndnunusnl Ia Jnclmn 4711; MM- mm mm tel P/nmMf‘: Travamark was oolamed by mu upon the Regmrsr ma would cause mnluslm and ducepnolv to me publ/0 and merulorv Inc mrnmn Tradamanx augnl m be mma mvulni on ma vrmmd allnud rn the ngutrllnon at me! me nmmnm was named by rvlkvvpvisvrvlltvofl under motion 47, mar: specrficlfly numwmsam suhsectmn may ofma rm 24719 {I} Consequently Planmlfs Trademark bearing No zmaussa rm "In Class 24: Ma)! be deermd ms: In new Deon made and ma! Ins Rzglsbar nl Trademarks (‘ma Rsgaurarv rs ordered max upon Dumg sarwd . copy om. Court . Onior mu Dunc! mu Rtgvxlar of Yrndnrmlkx acwrdmyly and visa nquwld ma Ragmmr may pubhsh ma Cmms om» m me /mellemual Property Journal P/arnfrfl shall pay all costs madamar m ramiy ms Tradsmalks Raglsiw at me weueauaa Pmpeny Carporfilron or Ma/Iysra mwpo) M um: um u... u .y 1.: sm mmmz mmm. «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 45 47 0:) Any ever and /umm ranerma: mls Honourable cam deem: m and mm In gm»! Yha pmvismn nu ma Ad rm mvalmauon M a Irademark us 5 47 seamen 47(1) anne Act makes :1 cleanhal unly an aggneved person may apply [or me rsgxslralion at a lrademark Io he declined Invahd by me Courl It provides. -ma mgmlrahon er lrndnm-vk my be dnc/and rr-ym by tho Cour! upon the lpphmtrm by .n lggrwwd pcruorv on me grow Nval me Vradsmanz wasruvrstsredm breach ofsachon za ' The oavenaancs cleafly reaagruze me, because vn paragraph as a1 Ihewr pm: Defence and Counlerdamu they exnressly pleaded ‘me oeiemarns Plead that may are aggnavad perszfls/D5"Y|W7wflrIf in semen 47 amra Tmzma and Is entmed to seek Iota decfiaralron that N»: Prarrrmvs mqlareved ltademarlr was :=g::1:n:d In arena was wA2m9 as azormra and an Order mar me Regrsler av Trademalks be raamraa aemrm..gry- Thus, me am rasue Is to ascenam whalhar ma Deter-dama are aggnayea persons Iv lhay are, we would own praoeeu to ocnsidev me vanous grounds Var mvalldalmn M me trademark lha| may ra.sa. Imus ceun (hen iarma me view mm «or any me e: mam n womd no| be a mam and ezmous case «or s|nking uul, men me Smkmg Du! Anplicamn womd be marrussed. uauzoaus In or amund July 2022 me Plamlufi reeenrea rnrennamn that me Defendants were also sellmg sauea cured pmnes rn packagmg that borelhe P\a\rmfl‘s Trademark (“lnlrmgmg Producl“) As nermersun Funds nor me Puarmm had never appointed any uf lhe Delendants as dlstnbulcr or retaner of me marnms Produd, me P\amuff beheved lhal. ri Indeed me Defendants were seflmg me wnngrng Product then those products were surely ooun¢er1e«, and that lhe Defendants were semng me Vninnglng Produm narng on and passmg r1 cffas me Pnarnurrs Product Fvom me searches oonduc|sd on me Defendants wI|h |he comaanres cornrnrssron ol Malaysra, the Delendarns are relaned companies They have exacuy lhe same seven dwecmrs (six or Wham are a1so bolh De(endanls snarenomers), me same company secmary. and operate oul of the same busmss address In Eullervvarlh‘ Penang (‘Delendanls‘ business address“). The Delendanls have not denied «ms, nor have may dwspuled me rm 3 M 25 43. conversery, nme Devendams are ml aggneved persons, men the swung 0u| Apphcalion would he auowsd because they would have no locus slandrlo mvoke s. 47 01 me An to Invahdale the Plainuvrs Trademark. 49 In McLaren|nhma1iona| Ltd v. Lim Vat Mean [zone] 4 cu 749. Ahdm Azm Mohamad FCJ said ‘We urvderuand mat nasage as la;/mg am ma nrmmpis mar a pelson zqgnevedts a persun WWO has used ma mark ax a trade mark I a who nas a genume and plan!!! mlermolv to use M mark as a mm mark . m rm cows: ara trade mm. M the skim: as at sumlav to ms and: arm. awmr on». rngrslarsd trade mark max Inn palmn wnnls to hnva rsmnvod «mu m. Wars: 50 Then. m Muuma spam Sdn Ehd v. Main: Sukun Noun- Malaysia [2015] s MLJ 405, Azahar Mahamed FCJ Hater CM (Malaya) sabdt “A person aggnevad rs 3 Wm who has used hv: mark as a trade mark or who naa a gamma and present mrvrmun m use In: mam as trada markml/7: course ova trade wmcms mg same as arsvmwavlu me regrstered made mark Inst the poison wants to be removed «mm In: zagarar me persun must be sum-ma who has some memsm allngnlmloruh ngm orlogmmala axpeclatmrv m as own mm wmcn .: mmg subrtanm!/y Mscvod by ma pruuncl a/ma Mgtslamd me mark The warts! and nym mus] be Iowa! or lawful ~ run-nmzs 51 In LB (Linn a e) Conleclionary Sdn and VQAF LId[2fl12] 4 MLJ 40, the appeuam was engaged m me busmess ev manuvscmnng, proaucmg, aeanng -n afl kind of cakes. buseuns, mead, eweens buns and other food~slufi in Ma\ays\a, and had produced cream filled buns and so\d these products using me tmdemark 'sqmgg\e' smce November 2007. The respondent, on me other hand. owned 79% of one Gardenia Bakeries (KL) Sdn Ehd ('GardenIa‘). and under a Ilcensirlg agreement in 1995 granted severa\ rights in Gardenia, Including] use 0' I15 kadernarks. Including lls rsgisteled lradernark 'sqmgg\es', that had been registered m 2oo4. The Federal Conn he\d. mist aha‘ Mal nu ma prInc\p\e 01 construction In bonam psnsm, an Irlfnngerofa vegxslered Irademarkwould rlol as a mailer 0| ualvcy be regarded as an aggneved person. zmkem 0.: (Ma\aya) sawd an pamgraphs [171 and [:31 cflhemdgmenloflhe Fsdeml Court) ‘We am m agvsemenx mm me learned nmgas fivrdmgs mar as an rnfnnger and as to may may be regarded as a pansy gmurvrl the appeflan! mm be regarded as a mason egg:-ma for me purposes 1JIs45(1/DIM! rm There rs ajunslrcsuppalllarmts palm;/‘appvuaclv by my mama wdgl wmcn was uphsfid by ma com! or Appeal As a menu of slatulury maammenen me courts have long lpplrod ms prmcrpls ormneaucnen m ban-am eamm /n aemnmnee wmv ms pnmzple ulconsmaclmn m bonam panem n rs mated that me reamed Inuuudgs had rem manne appenanxnau been mlvmgmg ms regrstered trademark sawgglns smca 20:77. me regrslaud lraatmark sau/gglos waa ragrslsrad an 2.2 Augusl 2004 mm! In nwngamanl rho nqvatomd Uudamulk mmam: n mgmurad Iradamarvt rn Mrs me even before me up/rcalron for sruungsrmrvl me appel/anl had unlewmuy been using me rnfrmgmg mark sqmqg/e mm rs oonlusmgly smnlav Ia me mgtstsrad tvadomark Appmng me an n .1 15 mrmpre or aonsirumm In Dorlam partvm ma apps//an! carmm be regarved as new . Dona five ‘pelswv aggneved‘ or a persnn who I: rawm, aggrieved Iar ma purposes or 5 45mm; of the 1m rurrrrmnm, rm. appslranus In a. regarded as . parser! nggmwd lav rr. pmpasdi ol 5 45mm) 0/ ma rm .4 wnuld mam AM: my In/vvnplrs may apply 10 vxpurvgs me very rrannmsrlr may Imus bun rrrrrmmv and "us would be contrary m the rrnremrroursa pvmcrphy ol notalbwmgthem m beneivtlrommsrrvsryown Moog olunlzwfl/lac! ' 52 As I have eamer already tuund mat the nevendants have mlnnged me P\amnH's Trademark‘ rt neeessamy Iouaws mat the Defendarus are not aggrieved persons and have no rocus standrlo mvuke s 47 at me Act to Irwahdale the Plamuffs Trademark. \ accurdmgly allow the pnarnurrs Slnkmg om Aypluzuon. :3. CONCLUSION 53 I merelore aHcw bum the F\amM's summary Judgment Appncauon and Striking Out Apphcalvon. wwlh casts. 54 For costs, I order the De1endams|o]oin|Iy and severally pay In me P\a|nMls cns1s o1 RMs,oao,oo, subject to aHacamr Dated me 7" day of December 2023 Counsel: Koay cnun Hnan (Messrs Koay Pamversh/pi Ior me Plamlfif. Isaac Huang wgenner wun Hs\en Huang and Khaw Hang Meng [Messrs Peter Huang 5 Richani) for ma Delendanls. Loglilation: Order 14 rue 2 0! me Rules 04 Court, 2012 secnan 47(1). 54 Trademarks An 2019 casn: Bmanang Communicaliuns Sdn Bhd V L&P Inderawasm Jaya Sdn and [zoom 3 MLJ 321 Falmque Ebel some Ananyme v Syarlkal Permagaan Tukang Jam cuy Fort!-0rs|1s8a]1MLJI88 Ho Tack Slen 3. Or: v Rolla Resean-,n Laboralanum s p A 5. Anal [2012] s CLJ 645 (CM H a. R Johnson (Malaysia) and v H 5 R Johnson Tues Limnlsd .1. Anor uses] 2 cu 531 L5 (Luan Bee)Corv1an:uanary Sdn Bhd v OAF Md [2012] 4 MLJ 40 Low or» Vang (|Ia Reynox Femcnem Industries) v Law cm Hang 5 Anor [2013] 1 MLJ 175 McLaren In|smauona\ Ltd v Lwm Va1Meen[20D9]4 CLJ 749 Mesuma Sparls Sdn Bhd V Mams Sukan Negara Melayswa [2015] e MLJ 485 Nalmnal Company For Fuvexgn Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bmi [1994] 2 MLJ 300 onus Expert whua Sdn Ehd v Nu! Vanni tn Adam 3. Anor [2022] 2 MLJ e7 |FC) Rackm and Colman Fmduas uu v Burden Inc and olhers,[1990]1AHER 873 Soon Kong Meng 5. Ana! v Lee Thye A Dis [1995] 3 MLJ 544 pm 2. M 25 ‘ an xuwnmznammaywmu mm. smm ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: m.n.n VII mum pm skyvvona Development Sdn Ehd v skywuna Holdings Sdn Bhd a Ors 1202013 MLJ 294 skywnnd Holdings Sdn End a 015 v Skywand Development Sdn End 5 Anor [2022] 5 cu 74 (F0) Tan Tuk Sing v Gomez Devexopmem Sdn arm (19791 2 MLJ vs The Oommwssuoners ol Wand Revenue v Muuer 5. Co‘: Mawanne, Lumned [1901] AC 217 Vang 519 Fun 5. Anor (I/3 Psrinduslnan Makanan & Mmuman Layaw- Layangl v Syankal Zamam H, Tamm Sdn Ehd A Anur{2012]1 ML! 535 me 15 BI 15 ‘ sm 1n:vnJrm-zzuammaywuu mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm photograph [hat the P\aIn|ifis adduced or lhe business swgnboards 0! bath ne!endams at the Defendants‘ DUSVHESS address To verify that inlurmanon m reoewed m July 2022. an (our separate ucczsxons on we 7 2022. (3 3 2n2a. 15 3 2023 and 293 2023 he Pxemms represen(a|we(sj wem In me Delerldanls prsmvses and each was made a cash purchase onne saued cuvsd Drune that was being sold lhere These Durchases eenmmed me Plamulfs suspicxon and (ears: lhal safled cured prunes produm bemg said was In Dackagmg that bore me Plamurrs Trademark Though me recs-ms tor (hose purchases were xssued by(he1“De1endanl‘s,(hs bar oudes on these packages were checked and found In bekwg to me 2"= Defendanl The packagmg or (he hvhngmg Pvodum neanng lhe puahms Tmdemark Weeks Iwke |hrs’ m The P\a1n\IW then med mus amen an 23 7 2023 and. upon the Delendant fmng its appearance, xherr med the Summary Judgmenl Aflev than the Delendann med ms Derence 5 Counterclalm It was through me! the Deverrdanc not only drsputed me Plamuffs clenns but awed oeumerclaimed 10 irwalrdate the P\aIn|IWs Trademark c. Somo basic principlas lor Iummnry ludqrntnl 11 In Nalionll cempany For Ferelgn Yradn v Knyu nay. sdn Bhd mu] 2 Mu :00, me Federal Conn 591 out the «nee basm requirements Var avnlymg for summary nrdgrnern, when are- (r) uhe Defendaru havmg entered an appeenande: (n; «he Defendam having been served mm a scaremenr or claim‘ and (Hi) ma Plarnhws amdawl In supparl or me Aaphcanan cumplylng mm the requvemerus av rule 2 enhe order 14 12 Though lhe firs| two are net disputed the oeverrdam contends |ha| nne lhvrd vs order 14 rule 2 or me Runes of court, 2012 (“RuIes") requires the Plarnm \u suppen me Summary Judgrnem Apphaaudn by an amdavm In Form 13 ouxppendnr A av me Rubs‘ and ma! Farm slxpwalersr amongst oxhers that \ha| amdavn mus| stem: the deednenrs bellellhal lhere rs he devende (0 me clam bag: 5 n4 :5 ‘ an ramn.rzz..mmayw “Nana Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe LAIQ4 m my r... dnmnnuly mm: dun-mm VII mum v-mm 13 The P\am(Ifi‘s Afidavll does not specmcany sume that \ns1.ead,af|er semng am me Iacis on wmm n relies (or summary yudgmem of us dawns, m paragraphs 23 and 29 me Pramm stated -mm /su L/NTL/K DVEICARAKAN mum cuwm my 25 Berdasamxn upa yang Ieralv dmyamkan m alas, says Isiah dinasmalr o/en Deguamcslu P/mm an seswvggunnya psmm bahawa Mada Mbavsrvy Isu unmk dnlncarnkun da/am gunman Am. zv Sara rssunvvu/-mrs Darcey: dun munynlxkan nmawa Plamm mamvunysr Iuntutan yang Dem! den sah lemsdap Defendan- Defender: rllmarva penmhwlan Am aflalahpamldan semarunil/K penyhakvman Ken/5' I4. For thvs emecunn‘ the Deiendam rehes on ma decusm ol Ajawb Slngh .1 m nn 'l|l< Slug v Gomu Dcvolopmonl sun am! [1919] 2 ML! 15, m which he said: ‘In an appbcal/an fur summan/Jllflwmenl under om. 14 D! cum m am. am 5: ma Swarm com me person man/ng ms .m1.m m lupval! mus! vuniytm ceuu cum.‘ and am: mu VI ms belrellhem ,. no delhncv 1» my -ctmn Films to co 5a a Mar to any apphcatmn lhr summary /udgrvzrvr Irvdud mo ouun‘ u/8/W9‘ la mm an apphcarronlovsurmnaryludgmenrrs made maynaleven nonsudel ma apabcatrw me pvmwv /vlakmg me amdawx m supuan rs ml pvspamd to my me cause nlaclwurv an um and say Mann ms nsbdlhcrs ,5 no mlsmae In maaclrm Nu fies: Important ,5 m. mumrarrllnl mu 1». porson who makas me amw muxl by m. P/ummny any other person who 2... swuar paamvely m m. /m panic: 1: 15 I dismiss (he Deiendanis mrilemiuri that not Saying Inai spepme statement in those specific words means a non-oamplianee wi|h order 14 rule 2 of me Rules 16 Firsiry ' my Vlew. although rdeanya p in applying for summary iudgmenx snouid try lo adupi ine oonlenls oi Form 13 in as amdavii MI suppon pnnarappircairun. in nus casei find ihai wnaune Piarnm says in paragraphs 25 and 29 at ICS amdamc efiecnvely mean ine same, namely man In me Piainncrs be than me Detendanis have no deience to me Piarnmrs c Alailure Io slavishly adnera |o ma words uysd in me Fdrni 13 IS nor in M52" a gmurid ro raiuse the appircanpn 17 sacondiy, in Tan rm srng, mere was airogeiner ansenr any sraierneni is that efleclr be ii in me wprds prescribed by Form 13 or me piainirrrs own wards of similar lmpafl More nnpunaniiy‘ In that case‘ the Hlgh coun also found issues to be med man made |he piarrnrtrs ciaim unsiniapieio be disposed or summarily wimuui a inai 18 Thlrdiyr In Soon Kong Mung 5 Anor v Leo Thyo & 0n.[1W5] 3 ML! 544‘ me plainirii nad appired under o an at me Ruies or me Hign Court 1990 men H1 cards [or specific peridnnanae ma sale and purchase aqreerneni 04 land 0 31 r 2m required me amdavn in suppon of such appirpaimn Vurthe deponeni Io sla(e misr sire, man in his belief were is no deienee (0 me aciion. Tna piarnmrs alhdavil did nui stale ihai. insiead me depaneni. aflev dealing with me delendanIs' bare aiieganan inai me sale and pumhase agreemenl was a sham (or being an iiiegai money-lending transaction, slat Van r M 25 ‘ srn rumr.rzs..mmym “Nana s.n.i n-vihnrwm rs. LAIQ4 M my r... annmury mini: dun-mm VII arium vtmxi 19. 20 21 -4 mg. m am here man the am and second aesemams are makmg a dshhevale attempt in decewe live pmmms am me mmowame own nlluvmng . lalre amaawr On lhe aeaendanrs contention men me plainmrs appncauon shamd be dismissed because «he pxamurrs represenlzhve dud nol sla|e m ms amdam ms beuev [here Is no delence lo me acuon‘ Pen Swee cum FCJ sam ‘Having man!!! to when has mm mm: mm, wn we aims vraw mm m. qualsd wwds mow. couplnd mm the dams! m a.mmm». .mp«..mawy olthe a/ravenous N ma manaams, wow i sumclenl mmpnam wvth the s.au1I9GWemenL . 9 line won't: bemg m apparent cwviurrruly mm the words at the SEII1 mmsmenr I find man muse Plammrs statemenls m us afluiavul do sulficlenfly comply wflh |he naqulremem m Farm 13 met me amdavm m supparl cl me summary mdgmenl appucauon mus| slale me aepunenrs belxel thal mere :5 no delenoe to me claxm I accordmgly meet me Delendams‘ ooncenuon that n does not. commg back |a me Fedemx coun In Narronsl Company For Foreign mm Once samswmg mesa was tzasu: rsqmremems, me plamun WI“ have eslabhsned a pnma Vaaie mass and he becomes ermfled In judgmenl The burden men shflls to the defiendanl IO salvsly lhe Donn why judgment shown not be given aga|ns| mm s-.1.-nus 22. 23 On the vssue or the Plainuws m me renal seekmg an 'm;unc|von agamsn the Defendants. m Fnbrlqm Ebol scam. Anonym. v Syarikal Fumiagaan n-king Jam City Port .1. Ors[1DE8] 1 MLJ ms. Zakana J (as he men was) new that, when lhose wee condmons had been fulfilled. mere rs no resmcnm m law to prevent a p\aInhll «mm pmceedmg to obtaxn xmunctwe rehef in summary pmgmem pmceedmgs Vn «ms regard, see also Binariang Communication: Sdn Bhd v L&P Inaorawusm Jay: Sdn and [zoom 3 MLJ :21. Summury ludumnnt lortrldnm In inftlngcmnm Sacllon 54 alTrndunI1k| Act 2nID (‘me Act“), 5915 am (he acts which consu|uIaIn1nngemem ova vegnslsved hadamark u pmvudes um nmourmng lo m/rmgumvnl Mmgvsllnd lrndarrurk m ; perm mirmgusa registered trademark me use: a srgn mm Is /dermca! mm m Iradermrk m relallorv Io goods or serwces mm are Idsnlvcal with mass Var winch .1 rs regtslerflt rr. my mums ol um wrmaul lire consvnl olme rsgrscerea pmarrelov (2; A patron mlnngsa 3 mgvsmlad lnmpmark rr woman! lha consanl o/(II! pruuneror arms trademark he was m Ma coulw omaaa n wrv— [a] mans rdevmna! mm the rradumark and rs usevlm relation to goods or ssrwcss srmuar m mass /at wmdv Irv: Iradammk Is mgrslzlzfl, or Pay g M 15 (:2; ma! rs s-ml/at to me usmm arm rs and m matron ru goods ars:MI:9s uamrral mm w sunvlar In mose for winch me mademavir rs regrstovud, rvsullmy m the likelihood or mrws/unonms panama mm 43; For m. parposu mm seflron, lparton uses 5 W. an.- la) apples 2: m goods 07 MW Nchsmg. to) arms or exposes goon‘: «pr 35/: urrdur rm saw 4;) mus goods on me meme! my me srgn, ya) mm guads undnr me Sign rm me purpose :7! oflermg or axposmg mam «m :57: or olpumng them an IM mrkol, 4-; ONIH or supplies sewn: undo! cm. W. ('7 impacts or expods good: mm, ma swgn‘ 4;; uses rm Irgn on an wow, caralnvue busmesa term busmess paper, was list or 00157 wrvmwmu! docwrwrvr mcludmg any such domment m any rnerluml, or (n) uses the ygn m nmterlmng 4:; A nlnan who- {.; angina: n rvytstlvvd naanmsm 10 any murmur used or mlsmed m be ma (av laballrng ovpnckagmy 9006:, o: (D) um a sagn m sdvzmsmg own any document described /n Paragraph 1:119». mu n. mm at u party we use: me matenal um. mlnngu ms ugrmmd Irbdvmbrk «I when he lpplmd ME ndamarir, he lmewarlvndmasorvtublhcwtvvatlflv apphcahovv aims trademark was not duly aumanzad by m. mgrstulsd pmmemr or the trademark or a lmensee - vagununs sm mmmz mmm. «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

AB-25-7-12/2022

PEMOHON FIRST SUCCESS SDN BHD RESPONDEN 1. ) NG TIONG RUEN 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH

Civil Procedure - Order 53 r.3 - Application for Judicial Review - Respondent filed claim for defects to the Housing Tribunal - Case remitted for re-hearing - Whether by re-filing the claim the Respondent had breached the order for re-hearing - Whether filing barred by limitation period - Whether Applicant denied of right to file Amended Defence after Technical Report was issued - Whether right to legal representation denied - Whether President had any basis to make the award - Whether decision tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Application dismissed

19/12/2023

YA Puan Noor Ruwena binti Md Nurdin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3f1af9fd-8e32-445b-ac37-419454219c27&Inline=true

19/12/2023 11:34:24 AB-25-7-12/2022 Kand. 34 S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /fkaPzKOW0SsN0GUVCGcJw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal an In 15 an ifi 1us—2s—7—12/2022 Kind. .0, :2 DALAM MAH@AH TINGQI MALAVA DI '|’A|F|NG DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZIJAN PERMOHONAN UNTUK SEMAKAN KEHA MAN FIRST SUCCESSS SDN. BHD. mo. svmxn: 159m-u) 1. N6 ‘nous RUEN Noll 25 2/2022 mum n-mu. p-mum.-.. ullh Firs: am... Sam and mgnfllnnlknn klbnnnnn mm» Cvniur-H n-lam n-mu Awud Irihunul hmunan PembeH Rumah No npnmmssrmzz :...-um. 15.11.1112: Klan Dalam nnuv: Alan Pnmlllnn Puumlhln (K 7: man» 4994 Pualumn» P: m... p...u;m Ptrumlhln (mnun-1 nmun-n »-..-mu: Rumlhi zoaz darn Am: Mxhiumah x.n.u.m 1554 an Alurln as x.am..x..a.r. Mlhklmlh zmz ANTARA PEMOHON DAN 2. TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH MALAVSIA sw mawxxawnssnnsuvceuw MRESFDNDEN-RESPONDEN 1 -ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm 34 11 311-14 m m 15 GROUNDS or JUDGMENT BACKGROUND [11 The Caurl heard this Audicial revrew application by me Appneanr an 9 5.2112: and poscppneu me aeersrorr In 19.9 2023 Due to unrareseen ermurrraranses, ma decismn was ualruereu an 1o.1a 2:223 whslem the com dismissed Kwflh costs. The Ap nl men a Name of Appeal to the Court ohlppeal against mrs Cuurfs aeersrprr an 23 10 2023, Leave for JR was gramed on 3.1.2023 as mere was no omsctiun lwrn me AGC. [2] The hearing of the jumcisx review appneauon was ac|uaHy ma sncond of sucn lvbliualimu belore Ihe Taming Hrgn Courl. 1 have relened Io urns nroeeedmg as -Jnz". There were 2 appneamns m mac proceeding wnrsn were nesm (ogemer. Tne Respondents men were Ng Tiong Ruen (wnonr 1 have recerrea to here as me -1“ Respondent") and me Tnbunal Tunlutan Pembeli Rumah Mmayswa (“the Tnpunam m JR Apphcalmn Nu. AB~Z5-7-I2/21122 The ulher JR apphcaliun by me Apphcantwas m respea more Tnbunal and one Chan crreng Yang m JR Appnsaurarr Nu Aa.25-1-Awznzs Tne second case was ongrnauy regrscered acme Vpoh Coun wmn regrscrauon numberNn. AA-25-4W 12/2022 It was transferred ro this com on 14.4.2023 because the 2 cases involved (he sanre Applrsanr and had sirnrnar cams, pm anerenr buyers. Nevennexess. ms AppHcenl mau cn|y1 Nudoa er Appear agzinst mus Caurfs ueersrorr 1 have prepared nnly am‘: (1) Grounds 0! Judgment In respem af the sam appeal bul may rarer «p «re fans In the other JR apphcalwon in ma rrarrarive onnis case for me complete sec ol facts 2 srNmaPzKownssNnsuvc13uw -use s.n.r n-nhnrwm re used m mm r.. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm wa murm wrm Ill 20 15 an (:27 me expiry aale imne detects llaallliy Deflfld as aei ea: iii liia sale and paiaiaae igwamurlli or (c) uia dine M ianiiinalian ai ina ma .Ind piiianaaa aaiaainam by aiinai pal-ly am sucn lainiinallen aaeiinea aaiaie ina aale al isaiianea at ine canlficzie al oonipianan and wmpllarlce lei lna nuiisliig aaeeiiiiiiaaaliaii ai uie aaininaii iaclmlts ai ma iiaiising aaaaiiiiiiaaaiiaii Intsndad mi samivieian. whlche-verls Vale?" [121 The App ant challenged ilie decision 0! ins Tribunal in lavcur of the 1-! Resnondent on grounds oi illegality, irrallonalltyarld pieeaaiiial imprnp aiy, wneie maie was no basis in siippen lrie linainga of lael. [13] For instance, llie Technical Repel! was challenged lnal lne Applicanl naii complied wllli me unilanii Building Ey—Laws inal any slaiis cannm be more man iaunini in height anii maielaie, the eoiniiiinae had wmngly inieipielaa llie approval plan by ilia lacal aulhurily, as me actual iiiaasiiiaineni were aetwiaan losniin and 178mm well wilnin lne naqiiiiiainanis :2! me building by-laws li was noied lliai inis coniplaini was lalaiwiindiawn (ileins 4 and 5) ll was siiarnmed also inai ins giaaienl oi me aaipamri did not mean me design was aeiecllve an all. Tliereiore. as me securld Tribunal Piesideni had {shed on the Taolinical Report, SHE riaa laken lnlo eoneiaeiallan inelevani facts meielzy pmdudng an lrmlonal declslnn In paiagiaprie 72 and 73 ai me Tiiliiinal President's Grounds ei Judgmen|, she slalaa: A72 lraiiianliaaan TBKVIIKEI yuvg dllakukan olvrl pasukan tekrllkal KPKI liiga ialan inanaaeaii bnhnwn wialaii iiiaiiiaiiai karla memacah lablhaqlall lanlai darlaarl xanaiaiiiaii : zaniniii asniiiaga ks Iipllan sac iiaiaa marlg cai waiai Rumah PVM. 13, Ealdasavksrl kepada f2k(a—llak\a dl alas. says Nembual dnpnlarl bihiwa SDKHHIIYE PP fldak ada menenma adufln berkerlaarl aenaan xeiiaexpaliilian pads car pawn‘ nauaiinaiia PP lalan aaiang xii Rumih leisalaiil bellmuan iiniiiii niaiiiaaanlian IIEINALI Dal porch niinan PVM dsrlgarl iiiluan urlluk )1 N Nk2PxKOWnSiNnGUVCGuw was a.n.i nnvlhnrwm be iii... M mm ms aniii.iiii siiii. dnunvllnl Va .niina WM! an 15 ll: membirm semnle seven: up: yang (ellh al luluskan aele-n pelan blnaan nun lelen dlluluskarl Tindnkan up dengan man unluk memscahkan ssmula namomn nu sendm lelan merlulljukkan hahawa PP lelen memnlmyil mus man nenaeranuan helkenazn kecaczlan (ersebul Jugs nensesamen mm Lapovan Tskrllkal yarlw lelen dlsedlakarl oleh pasukan Teknlkal KPK1 lelaepel vvbazzavl ukurarl kstlnsnlarl Vsvelllng carpevch yang lelan dlluluskzrl dalzm pshn hlnun dlngsn .p. yllvg l.l.n dl hm: dlrumuh FYM.' [14] Nevenlnelees, II was suhmnled by me Appllcanl that me Presidenl {all lnlo enm becausu me 1- Respondent al me neanng was asked and ne replied‘ ‘T. Maker: 99 nelen marllhank mmah r-vm Pm aennn lagl, Pm lelen mambuat Lapurarl polli nengen flu PP Iidak eae memenal sebarang kznarkevln pemeemn fll mmah WM‘ 11 was submlllsd lnal her findlngs were wrung as me Tschnllzl Repurl dated 1.9.2022 (Exhibll FS—15) bahawa PP telah membuat kene memecah sebahagian lanlal". The photogvaphs tendered as exh s um nal snow mm were was any damage all en lo the carpcrch. The Applicant also contended lnal ea ell not stale -ma iuga lelen rvlerldapall the respondents men had relleu on me same photographs, qlmtallons and cost esllmales as well as nleadlngs, marelnre. me clalms were net Dana fide but were In lea lalss clalms. Mmeever, the alleged WhatsApp oonversellen lllalgave nollueln me App nanleuuul llle uereu-ls was never tendered In evmenea hedore lne Tribunal Paragraph A3 cl me Trlburlal Presldenfs Gmunds nuudgmenl s'aled' 'S91siah msrlanma rrllllkan kusorla. F’VNIleIah melzkukan vemeqlkslaan ke alas Rumah temsbm dan mvvdapill ieldavat beherava kecacatan pane Rumah larsebnl Pm lelan pun mamaklurrlkan ncara peiarlan V/natsapp Kepafla wakll PP banana darlgarl bubnrspa keping gambal kacacalzvrkecacalarl rlamurl lleue flrldakan dlnmbll nleh PP din/-nun wakllnyu umuk mmuem kecacalarl levsebul ~ 11 SN llIal>xKownssNnsuvcGuw "Nuns Smnl n-vlhnrwlll be used m mm n. mn.l-y mm: dun-mm wa nrlum we 1a m 15 an as [15] Fuflherlhe Award Na 2 was lamtad um ' agamy and smaau of procedural impvnpliety wnen the second Tnbunal F'resdiden( aHowed the slam in be mad pn>maIure\y by nonmmpliancs with me SPA Clauses 27 an: 29. u was submmed that the second Tnbunal Prsamem lailed Io mnsmer me Ms! M delecls which was prepared upon the dvections D? the firs! Tnbunsl Fresment heanng the firs! clawm. [16] In the SPA, wt was pmvided in crausa 21 that -21 Dalad Mammy panaa (1; Any uavaax, shrinkage at n|he¢ cauua .n ma sand Bmldmg Much Dewmex aaaarsm wiwn Iwenly-Iaur 12¢; mnrflh! alter me am Ihl Furchussv take) vacant nossaasim of Ihe sad Pmpefly mm which in due on dnfmnive wurI<mansmDorma(er1a\s on we saw Euldmg not hamng aasn mnnrucmd in auwmancs with me plans and desallmmns as spammed in ma saaanu and Fmmh Schoduls; as awvvved ar anenuaa by ma Apvmcriake Aulhovm/n snuu s. npalnd Ind mm noun ayau Du-IWIVII llswmcoslund sxpenu w. . ihiny (so) um onus Dnvulopur nauvna ruccivvd wrlnm nomu umsama... ma Punch: <2» n In: salsa, shnnkaas av vlher rauns m we ssh Eunmng have ml aasn mm am by me Devnkwer wmn my (am uzys Memo to In suh:\zuss(1L ma Fuvdwainv snau a. amnlad to r:arvynu| ms wmksto rapalrami make good such ddect. shnnkage urulherhulls saw and la reuuvedwm ma Devsbper ma costs 01 repeirmg am making gaau me same anu nna Pmchiser miy aauuu yunh msis (mm any sum which has been hsus by ms uavsxaasws sohcflurs as staksholflers unusman. 5 Mlhe mu Schedme. um»/Had wmuhs Purchase! man, at any mna ailsr Ihe swvry ov me wanna at my (am aays. nanny cm Dcveiorlsr or 015 cons of yavmnng ana mam noon such asvsa. shlinkzga nr an... huh: b-lam (M cammancemam 51 ms work: and snau sflva me Devebner an onpormmly in «zany um Ih: wurki mmsebf wnmn mm Law days {mm the dale the Purchaser has namau Ihe Dev/:\uperA71 ms manuan be may nu: ma works ana pnmusa «unnsnnauns Fmchasershzm any oman-1 oummenoe ms wnms as sum as nractlcame anerme uauauapsws lnfluva In any uul ma works wunun me said my (am days m such an event, the Duvsbperi aomaum snau Iwuaie such wsli to ma Fumhaser lmm ma uakanamu sum nanu by cm nmwapsrs iullmwu undsv Ham 5 4711715 mm Schedule wma mm (in) am alkrma mum by m. Duvelaperi Iulldwvs at me Purchasers written demand specwfywllg nn. ammmtuf sud! cast: 13 an maPzKownssNnsuvcGuw "Nuns sanaw n-nhnrwm as used m mm ms annmuu sun. dun-mm VII anum v-vrm m 15 [171 it was submllted than me President laileo to appreclals tnat ms 1- Resnorldenl retirees to comply wilh ine SPA pmvlslorls and he nad lalled to give wrinen notice by AR Reglslsrsd lor tne Applicant to make good anydelecla wrlhln all days. The letterslmmlne 1“ Respondent‘; solicitors did not lisl down any of the alleged defects or an appoinlrnanl date to verlfy the wmplalms Wllhclul the list of defecis. ‘l! was contended that ll wa pcsslble fur tna Applllznt to make the repairs The Award No. 2 was also deleclive as it should only be we eosis ol repairing and making good ine sarner. Moreover, me 1* Respondent snail ‘carry aul and commence lne works’ beiore making tne actual repair costs lrorn the solreilor stakenolder. Paragraph 25 cl tna wnnan suonrrsslons stated '25 Pressdsny-mg .nn.a. Islkhllafnpnblla mambevl awad menglkul panllalan (anpa memaklumkan nlhnk Femahnn spa km ma dicidangkan Seklll llgl samzds Pemohnrl merlcaber kns yang dlcadarlgkan oar. pihak Izkmkal alauvlm nilzlsn aflzlah alas heldasar K05 Jabalan Kerjz RBYB yang Dads urrlumnya adalarl lomn llrlnsll dallvada kos dalam Perlarlllarl Jualhell lldak dllvyalakan dallm Not: Kelelingln Pelbszaarl haV9§ lvlllflgi Kevan: mas: 4 (ahull Izlah hefliludarl zme ..n...w am flan arr..an.nal nanoral-mam kepada Pemnhon ' [15] The Applicant also contended that lna Trlbunal proceeded lc make tne Award No 2 based on the Technical Report, wrtnoul glvlng an opporlunlly to the Appllcant lc pm ldrward lis dalenoe dunng ina hearing This was EECZLISE me seoond Tribunal President did not zlluw Ap la llle lne Amended nelenoe on lisl oi delens and merelore. ine denial was a brunch or natural lusllce The Applicani was llierelore not given me chance to prepare its case adequately Wllh less than 14 days sitar me Technical Renon was issued. Also, inc sewnd Tnounal President was bland agalnat lhs Applicant wnen ha war. dsrlled tnls nghl. During ins oral slrornlsslons lne Calm was relarred to a number cf case laws VI II sin llIaPzKowl'lssNnsUvcGuw -nae Smnl In-vlhnrwlll as used M mm ms nflnlnnllly sun. dun-mm w. mono pm 10 15 In 15 suppsri orine Appiicanrs claim tu have me Award Na, 2 quasnen i will address are cases iarer in inis Grounds uuudqrrieni [19] cuunsei nu ma 1“ Respondent in ms submissions reierrea is me wrinen submissions filed and uisunguisneu ine case laws is by me Apnllcanl. Tne Award No. 2 at me second Tnhunal President was mmiblled by the 1" Respondent in NTR—8 in Encl. 14 It was submitted that the iuris I Ional issue had been dealt with by the President un 1D M022 and iegai rapraseniaiion by both pariies were aliowed. However, me Presiaeniueeidedinaune Tribunal had amen in accordance wish me erderoi (ha Ccurl ampneai for me case in be re-men in order in be rerream. The cisirn No. 2 was a acniinuaiion oi me new dam and given a new case number. Tnere was no issue or me 1‘ Respondeni (or crian ciieng vongi io havs hreachsd s.|EN(2) because me iaeis in issue were me samet'acls1mm|he ciairn Na 1. II was unly ine Technical Repurl mar was ariiereni aiineugri me findings in ins repurl were similar and the casts esiimaunn had gone up (irons 2019). Hence, me 1-‘ Rasponueni eaniendeu inar ine Appiieanr sneuiu have med a JR applicaiien againsi the decisiun an 10 5 2022 whereas me subsianiive nearing was oniy rieid on 15 M 2022 Therefore‘ they were out oi iirne in fiiing me JR2 on 5.12 2022. [20] wheiner or not mere was a damage la «vie carporen assuming Ia irie 1“ Respondent was a namssua because ma pvimary issue to be oonsiuereu was whether the carpcrrch was mm: In accordance wim irre approved pian The argurnarn about nor having a proper wrinen name was aisa a nunsiarrer Tne Appiicani nsa v ted me Property to carry our irre reciificaiion works. This showed iriai me Applicani was aware oi irie IS sin maPzr<ownssNnsuvcI3uw Nuns s.n.i n-vihnrwm be used m mm ms nrwirrnflly sun. dun-mm wa muue wnxi delscls oomplainad gt although they said they never repeiued a list of delaue from the 1“ Respondent. [21] n that the issue or clauses 27 and 29 had peen argued at length in the application in JR! and then it became the primary issue relied on by the Applicant at the Com ol Appeal. The Cmm ol Appeal in remitting the case allowed the Applicants appeal out was not satislied that the maner was properly heard py the Tribunal. Hence, the same issue should not oe ialaad again now as it was res judicata. it was also their oonte [221 it was submitted that nowhere did the SPA state the oiiyer must pmvide a lis| at detects. only that written notice must be given wtthin so days and which had peen given by the respondents vide letters dated to s we and 3,10 2013 (see clause 27(1)). Nevertheless, the Applicant took almost 2 months to respond to the letters. In paragraph 7: ol the Award No 2. the President loiind that the Applicant had come to carry out teotincation works‘ thereby the Applicant had adequate notice ol tha detects. [23] on the issue afthe Applicants attempts to amend their delenee on 1.11.2022, the 1-‘ Respondent submllled that amendment pl pleadings was at the discretion ol the President, No reasons were stated why they needed to amend their defence, The Amended Deferloewas sought to be included alter the Technical team had concluded their report, given on 12.10.2022. Theretore, the Amended balance was seeking to pmvide a reply to the Technical Report. The 15' Respondent submitted turthar by doing so. the Applicant suugm to plead euideiioe whereas pleadings ooritain only taets They should instead apply to me their own wen report instead atamending the delenoe and/ or that tor the approved plans to be is sin N|t2PxKOWnSiNflGU\ICI3uw -use a.rt.i In-vlhnrwm as used M mm re srtimiiiy MW: dun-vlnttl vta nFluNG WM! 10 2» revised. The Applteanr replied that the court sneulrt disregard Inls last minute statement tram the Bar as these were not in the written subnllssluns med [241 Replying to the issue raised by the Appllcam in paragraphs la la 23 07 |he Applicant‘: written submlsston (Encl 19) Ihal ll was sariausly prejudiced and denim Tali justice by the Tribunal as the Notes 07 Proceedings arlfl Grounds Di Judgrnen| did not record Ina Issues as set out In paragraphs 13 Df Encl. 18, the 1‘ Respondent submitted ll was 7101 substantiated and merely a statement rronr the Bar which shouid not be emertained by the Calm Additionally, ll was submllled mil (here were no complex issufi onaw requiring legal represemallorl throughout the whole proceedings and there was also nu evidence to suggesl that any of the parties wouid sutler severe nnsncral hamshlp in the absence at legal representation. It was conlenfled tunher that there was no appllcatian made (0 cmssexamlne any members al Ina Technical Team and no oogsnl evldsnoe that the Applicant had treen denied a «air hearing as the Notes of Proceedings show [25] The Technical lnspectiun Report (pages 33-62 Exhibit NTR-3 in Encl 11) contained the lindings ol the tn-ncuss Technical Team where it could be summarised that they Vound there was a technical aetaulti e. the main contnlltint thnt the enrporclr was not hunt in lccunixllce with the Approvnl Plan and hmchuu and was In tact defective due to withrfloadlng it when It ralneu. Aoeeroing In the 1*‘ Respondent (during the rehearing on 15.11 2n22) “fielakang rurrrah saya sekalang le/an bsrltakung slf (page 31 of Encl. ML The compensation was to ensure the defects be rectineo in accordance with by~Iews. However. the u an lnawxxownssnnsuvceuw -were s.n.i In-vlhnrwiii be or... m raw he nflninniily eon. dun-mm he .nunc wnxl 15 2o 15 Applicant argued that the uompensahon sought was not [or any reualrworks al 211. [26] The pan at ma pmaeaaag which was quulzd by the Applicanfs aounsel earner in this Grmmds of Juagmemwas acmauy preceded by me fofluwmg ewdance (page 34 av ma Nules of Emdence): -um: ma man dal-inn manna uwmbcmzhu pm a... mu: s.>..;. m...a.mk @ m-muum Ilnuv. PP lnlah monihick rnmah Jlran snvn «an s. . Nnmynk ma, .. a....a..a mm kmulir Jlkz pw 1-ma am mcnahlnk lumlh nyl inn. on. Pm mm I-pour! pvlil umuk nwlmuunnmh. 'T Aflakah PP Isiah menghaok mmnh pvm FVM Ealum Wag!‘ PM man memhuz| lsvoran pong. Dengan nu pr mak ad: mambunk iabarang ken:-kana pamaaman an ruman FVM.' [Emphasws added] [271 T7791" Respondent submitted an |he case of Chlllhanlhlnl Angola Raulnn Subnsllnmpillnl v Vlow Eslum Sdn mm [2922] I LNS 22:2 where the wssue was swmllarly rswssd Le mat the humebuyers shmnd have exhausted aH avenues under lhe swx before navmg recaurse |o ma Tr\bunsLlnlhs(case,ll1s Court n(Appea\ hs\d that humehuyers may also seek oummcn law mm: in respect of mew awaims as Vullows ‘[29] A mm: wniwdsvauon an olausu 2»: sum wuuki show mac u \s not manaaa ln by a pumhasslfvum asismng ma common law Hams xa clam vm damage: urvdev ma sn The Vugal fvamuwolk amam 2s a such that n Vs a but a mechanism form: puvcmserrn ensure lhal aasana which man became apparent wllhm 24 months aflev vp are remind This a pmmdlfl nu an days‘ name Is mama pa; Tnwarvs (ms am, mare ave procedures as «a new the mam are In be vacwfied. smhev ay ma vandav or by ma purchaser m ma: sense. we do not an N mawxxownswnsuvctsuw ma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used a mm a. nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm a. .mm mm an m so dusaqree mm -he Ieamee au|hurSY Kuk out «he dofsI:1\IabIIm/ clause cannol Iuhehen uhru and unless same vmoeduml xlzm ave mmphld mm by an asmrlsved vumhassr Ummalmyr II Is me nrumhaser me I! In be nrereerea. wheu ms aeve-as are to be reemea eIlhe( an me vendors eesn ar by me pulchuu where Ihe puvshaeer aeer me re-:lIfiua|l0rIr such were are Ia be deduched hem ms s1aivehuIdIrsum seI ems Ionhrs purpos EVALLIAYION AND FINDINGS or 111: cg_uRT [25] herem in regard to Ihe pmceedmgs in me prewous Clalm Na.1,Ihe reason why me Iearneu .IuaIeIeI Commissioner term In JRI I.l1al|hefIrslTrIbunaI II was paIemIy clsav In Ims Cour! upnn perusal 01 me affidawts filed Fre ' nz had ccmmmed ermrs 01 law as oumnee abm1e.ThefIrsIr.lsIm was a resuh 0! an urrsuneessm medraherr wmeh the President than viewed that he had lo I-,ompeI Ihe pames Ie swept Ihe firsI TeshmcaI Ihspeehen Repen when he made in binding an them. There was nu\ an actual hearing new in me hm eIaIm In mm. [291 In Ihe present JR2 apu|ICaY.iDn.1hIS caun had perused me cause papers, subm' "Inns and case laws cued by the pamee amvmg at he decIsIan where In the end «he Coun had In dismiss Ihe appHcaIAon. The most Impuflanl aocurrreru In (he hearing belole Ihre Cnurt wee Ihe Notes or Fvoceedings and Gruunds ouuagmem (Award NI: 2) as exmehee In (he1“ResDonI1erII's Afldavn Jawapan Encl. 14, order Ier me Ccum In revlew Ihe pmeeeamgs IheI Inok place at me Tribunal he the Ilme the cIeIm No. 2 wee rs-filed unlII me Award Na 2 was Issued hr Apnl 2023. The rehearmg was heid beluve e ahverem Prwderrn av the Tribunal. It was noted mat Ihe Tribunal omcer(s)was anxinus to convey Ia Ihe pames W the Ieners senllhat me Tribunal um um give any IegaI armeeca Irhgams («er examme refer lo page 29 In ExhIbIl NTR»2 oI End. 11). Tms was rightly smea as a rermhaer Io Ihe pemes that me Tnbunal was my a 19 SN IIIaPxKowI'IssNnsIJvcI3uw ‘Nuns Sum! nnvIhnrwH\ re used e mm a. nrW\nnHIy mm: dun-mm wa nFIuNG wrm In 15 us so an quaswuducual may established to resohle homehuyers‘ disputes mpedunnusly and swmnomiuzlly [30] The relevant provisxcns vflhe HDA applicame to the Tr1bI.ma\ and its powers are as per Pan V1 onhe said Act as vanows: -mm tn swear sn neaflnus 1EU.(1)AHhs Manna ms claim every pany snsu be mulled Ia wand and b: heard (2; Nu puny mu D9 vapmlanled by an advocala and smlchor 2| a headnu unless m the npmmn av 01: Ynbunzfl ma mallsr m qunmovv Involves oomplex Vssues at xsnu sna nne puny wfll sufler levers finsncAa\ hardship n he 1: nut mpmemsu by an admule and solutmr, am 14 ans vany ws subsequvmy alluwad tn be rawesenled by an advocate and smlcnnv than me ulhsr puny shafl alw be so ammea. Evidence csw n ) me mnunav may» (sy pmsum am mcewve all such emenoe on mean or smnnsusn, whslhnr wmiun or uul. and axamma an such persons as wunsssss, as me Tnbunallhmki necessary 10 pmms. vacsma orexamme. (bj raqulm Din pmdudmn balov1\\A71buoki.papurtdacumurvlsnrsooldi and mm; (:1 admwslersunh oa|h, smnnsnsn arsuamlaly dedamian nsms cut my Vanni my seek and vacelve such umer evidence and make such nllver inqumes as n Ihinks m. (3) summnn ms pimas In ms pmusedmgi at any omev vsvson to altend news xx tn gm mama ar m pnsauus any document means 0! omnv mm \n as pmessaun ar mam. In In a ms TrIbuna\ m m aevmsnmons, Ln mum axperl evidence, and (g) gsnusuy am: am do an such Imngs as may be necessary av wand nflornm upsamous detarmmanon arms claim. Award: or me Tnhunefl «av up The Tribune! :haH make us award wnnoun delay am, where yuI:l\cab\:, wmnn my days item me am day we nsanng before lhe mbunsu commences my An award alllvehibunal umsmhssmn (1) may nqulra mu av more ov me lollowulw In sm m:PxKownssNnsuvcGuw mu. snn n-nhnrwm s. u... w mm s. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm vu mum v-max 1; FACTS or THE CASE [3] The Appltcant was a hmtstng deveroper nswrng we bustness address tn Ipoh. Perak. It ned M11129 unns ai doubIe»stcrsy teneee nodes 1n Tamar: seternet Mam‘ Ger1k.Ths 1“ Respondent was en indtvtduet who en1ered Into a sexes end Purchase Agreement (SPA) on 17.11.2015 wtth tne Appucent to purenese one or me drnts bemg developed on Plot 1 new under HSM e714 PT 1411:, Mukim Genk, Hulu Ferak vor a sum at RMAtts,nou on (“me Propem/‘1. Vacant possession o1 the Property was given to me 1* Respundervl on 9.2.2015 and some deVecle were discnvered by the 1*‘ Respondent thereafter and eornptetned that some veetures ot the Property were not eonetruoted In eeeordenoe with the Approved Layout Plan aneorred to me second scrteddte dune spa. The SPA wee based on the eterrderd soneddte (5 template as pmvided tn the Houetng Depetoprnent (Comm! end Uaensing) Ragutaltuns was and me Hodernp Devetoprnent tcontrot end Lirensirtg)Ac119B€('HDA") [4] W121‘ Rapundenl "z:ummuntcated“ tne de1eots1ozne Applicant on ndrnereds occastons vta wnetsapp out the Appttcent auegedty fatled, remsed and/or rregtected to reetny the said de1eots. The 1-! Resnortdenfs solicitors sent lellers dated 10.32015 end 3.1122011: In hne wnn Ins orovtston of clause 2712) or me SPA. The Appflcent etenned mat it dnty reeetved me firsl letter on 25.9.2013. The Appltcant responded to me 1=* Respomienfs eottottore on 510.2013 and 13.102013 tn mm repty tenors‘ tne Apphcanl stated met it “did not receive any detective complaints tn any lorm via tet1erowertretty' worn the clierns and requested «or e Its! oldelects or unsatlslacwry workmanshtp to pe torwerded to 11 for eetren. However, on 31.10 2013, the 1-1 Respondent med e clatm wtlh me Trtburtal (ND. TTPR/A/0947(T)/IE) usttng 5 detee1s. 5 SW Nk2PxKOWnSiNnGUvCl3uw Nope s.r.1 Iuvthnrwm re used m mm r.. nflmnnflly sun. dun-mm wa or\uNG we re 1» en An (a) me: e pnnylo Ihe pmceedlnus pay mnnsyxa any mm-zr party‘ in) 4hz| the mice er errrer mrrsrderallnn neie by ma hamahuyar or erry erhereereeh be valunded In rhe homsmlyevorlnal pslso . (cHha\ e rum oorriary mm the HI: eh-1 vuichass BQIEBMGIIL (.17 mar mmley ee iwlniod re eompansals rm any ion er damage suflered bylhe |:inim£n|, Aer Ihallhemmract ee Varied at eer aside whniry errh Dani U) Ihalmsls re or eeeirrererry new be Dami Aw) «her rmeres| ee pain on ehy sum or rherrerery award er 3 rere her exceeding erem per Oerilum per eariurh, uriiaii ir has been nlnsiwiss agreee bebunen rhe Paniasi (h) Ihal rhe ereirrr V3 dismissed Reierenoe re e Judge er me Hrgi-i Cmm on e quasllnri er iaw 162 H) were rhe Yflburizl makes an ewere |llWBfSGWflH1flV,i|N\5y4‘|’HIS diswelklrii rerer (0 e rueee errhe High Carma euesrrerr errew— (a) which ereee In me owns or rhe prooeadinuli (:2) mm, .h rhe epihreh or the Tnbunaii re er suriuehr hrpenehae in near such iefererme, and (C) rhe eerehhinersen nf vnrich by rhe rrieuher .eises, i.. rhe Dpillnll er rhe Tribunaii sufliciem flnubno mar-ll suee rererehee - The decision oi lribunals in the country are always suseeplihis la Judicial review as n vrevidss ier a eheck and betenee mechenrsrrr by the High Coun which has supervisory rurrsdrerren aver eamihrsrrerwe bodies Io ensure the declsron-rnaking proeess ere hm rernrea with Hisgalrty, irrerrerrerrry, procedural rmprepriery and unlaxmess. In Morrxen bin aeker v Panzana Errrerpriee Sdn Ehd [mm 5 ML! sos Raus sherrr PCA (as his Lordship than was), stated er peragraph 41: mi n is we iew mar me decision er rhe Industrial Conn ls suscemihie to judicial review eh rm slmunds nf -rrieuerny. “ifmhflnllilyi 'DrooeduraI .mpree..er¢..re pm My ‘pmnnnionalflf under which the scum ere uerhee Mm porwarx re scrunriixe Ihe dacisiun her uniy rer prouss but aiso rar substance (see R Rama Chandra): v Theindu:1niiCnmI er Mxllyxra r. am [1997] 1 Mu 1454199111 cum) neereee cases errememe Charidrfiri had ereeny esreerishes trial where are reere do not support me wricluslnri amved enmhe iriduwia|CouI\ enhe rrharhaeerme ihauemer Corm had been Ilvivsd er er Iakrrig imo coniidsraliori irvelsvam mailers, ind: mines are emye amarinbia In judicial review (see Amanah En11siLM7$dn Bhdv ‘(Ike crree War: 11 SN mawxhownsmnsuvceuw “Nuns Sunni n-vihnrwiii re used m mm has nflnihaiily mi. dun-vinrrl VII nFiuNG we h9s21J1 MLJ 75u‘[19971 2 cu 19 Swedish Motors Assemhuss Sen and v H: mm ‘mm mu am [may 2 MLJ :12‘ (ms; 3 cu 288: Pelvollam Naslonal Ebd V Nik Rnmlx Nix Ham" mm] 2 ML! zae. [20:13] 4 cu 525 and Ranm Kaurs aln em: Smqh V Halal Excefsmr(M} Sdn am [2010] e MLJ «‘ [way 6 cu s29). [32] The learned >-ugh Coun Judge In the case 01 Narnlm sum us. Rzsl v sotlauuha sumiunjaya Porkhldmaun Awam Mzliysia (WA-25~ ICSIJMIZOZD} stated: -a H V! we Vaw lha| Ihe noun mm» can me». an: decman-making wncess am my me wbsunce Mme demslnn. 1 m we Noam Faosm Conn Cale, Am Sam 2. Samoa (M7 Sdn and v Nadnah Zaa m Ahduflah am anumarappsal [2013] 3 MLRA sen; (201512 cm 513, now) 2 MELR 331, (201512 Mu 537, cm. Imam! approach on wdlclal uevxew m R. Rama Chandran V The |wdu11na\ Caun L11 Malaysia 4. Amr[1$§T| VMLJU5‘[1E97l|CL1IA7:l199fl]1MLM725:[l997]IAMR as m. been rt-yemprlamzad as mnaws -[45] m m. uml zppeaL Edgav Joann J! re: (Eusofl own m agmamemy an mm an award wuld be revnswsd forsubslancs aswefl asdnrnraeess we Vs men said maHudk:Ia\ mew vs wncemefl nmwllh lhe daemon hm ms dacmowmaklng Dlooess Lsee e a cruevcansmme at Norm Wales Pahcs V Evins 119521 1 ma 1: 55) ms vmpaimun, at mu 9209 value‘ may waI\ curwiy an. imprasslnn ma ma mnsamn ul ms nouns m Jndicml nawew Dmceedmgs is wrvfmed to cam where ms anqnuved party has rm racewed Vmr tranlmenl by Ihe amhumy |a ‘MVIEH n. ha been sublscled. Pm ditlerenlm m In: wards aumu mama m Councu ulclvll Service Unions 1. Dr: V. Mlnhteflnrlhe cml Slwlu [1935] An :74, where ma «npuanea dedslnn Vs flawed an Ihe amund cl pmmuraw Wmpvupnaly am Lani napumu-. mm grounds our Impuqnmn a doclilon Euscevliblr m 4.. . .1 ma... m. n nhumiinlly cl .r me such a dnclslan u .1» open . chnllenge on grounds of‘ IgI|lIy' Ind 'llnliun:l|Iy' Ind In nraclloe, um. mums Ihe cmmx to .c...u..x.. mu am-um not unlytur process, hulnlsa (or sn|:num:n.' N mavxxownswnsuvctsuw um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 15 10 35 no In ma. cnnlzm‘ n .. useful N mm mm Lord mum (II pp mum defined me mrea grmmdx ulrevwewl/J1: wit, u) xllsgahly‘ ( w:|\ana|m/ andW1DIooeauralimvmDr1e'Iy.Thms how he an: n av wuoaamy as a qrourm rm Jun-max Rewew, u mean mac lhe decishn maker mun unduiland wrrscuy the Vaw Iha| ran-mes hb dscrslnn» making pawlr zmd mm give alfv;1 to n wnsmar ha has or not Is par exceflunue a jusmame quswon on be dsmdsd, m the svam ow-sauna‘ by «me venom, lhe judges, 21, M1am|hI]nd|:\lIVnrwIr L11 the stats ws exevc\aah\e. ay wrm.onam~/. I mean vma| can by nww be suochwclly mfened m .5 Wednesday umeasonab\enan' Kine Assodaled Frovtndal Flame Ham; Lm V Wainesbwy com [1948] 1 KB 22:). u awhss to 2 dacman wmn r. so nmmgenus m It: dvfianu at we or :71 auamsa mmm...a..usm.A...7 sensltfle mm who had lpphod mm dlama quesuun In he amen mm have amved at n Whmheu decbmn lafls mm" We caneqory \s a Queshnn ma: Audfies by their m.m.»g and axpensnce mama be wan equrppa: to answer. av use II-were would he mmrmmg badly wrong wnn om judvcval system. Tn guslny um semis’ axsruse mm. m\=. vasan 1 mm u may no longs! navdadla \/Iwuum Raaumss geninus exmnnimun xn awn. V E:|n1rtw[‘ID5E] At. «A, unnationafllyssailound lnra mun‘: reversnmiademsmn bynscnhmg am an Infmad «rmugr. umellnuhle rmslake anew nyme awlsmn maker. -unaounaxw ny now can stand on its ownfem ssnn awemefl alumna on mu. 3 dauslun may be altawad by Judlmal Ravlsw I have assumed ma um mu 3; pmDEduriIimpmpnely‘Ii1lIBr man lawn to nhserve am rules m n.I|ula\ guslwcn ar hflura m an wxlh procedural «amass «mm the nerson who wil be samba by lhe deusvnns. nus 1: hmzuse susoelmmhly In Jud\cla\ review under (his head mar: :19: iaflurs by an admmtstnnve mmmau Co observe nrmaum Mu mm the exwssily ram down m |ha Vamslalwe Vnslmmenl by winch btspu-isrl>v:1|an is wmrrsa. avsn mare such vauura does not involve any denial cl nnmrm Jusliue Lord mum also men1¥aned‘DmDdII1nM|W‘ns n Bumble mm grmmd of rewaw which cafled Vordeve¥o|>me«L' 12. Tim Iuncllnn mm court in judicial rmllvw rs Io nvlvw urn doclilon of (In dlsciyl Ivy ...n.m1 u and mm to uhur Ihu can by uviuw, r.» ISSISEJI nu»-em. n-uvnr ....a.:...ca,n.a.....u.m..;..1......=. as in has rm. he Ivfdenu. wewmnu Ind Assessing the evi ....=. :3 sw mawxxownswnsuvceuw «ms smm n-uhnrwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 1) m 15 so as Is in tuncllon of my dlnlnllnarv nulhurlflc . m conrl umm inuricrn nmuly bonus: n maycomu In HWVCIIIII concluslons on ran: an Inn um. unit 01 an urm manic. isu Kuvijun Malayila V4 Tay cmi mm mm) I MLRA as mm 1 cm :17 12.21211 mam sin: mm : mu 1») [Emphasis added] [33] The prinoipla in Judic1aV review are Ihe same whether ii 15 a inbunei concerned wiin ernploymeni laws/inausuial disputes, caxaucn, consumer proieciicn, hcmebuyers and the like. In the case at an Devolunmonls Sdn Bhd v Solanqav Aapeal Board 5 Or: [ma] 3 ML! 539 vemun Chg J. (as ne men was) mated‘ -pnwcmzs or JUDVCVAL REVIEW [39] Aime umsel 1| swim sim be men that in. Ivmsdyzmufliclal mviaw VS na| mnoemed with reviewing lhe menu at me decision V! which ma apuliclliun vorimicisi Review is made mean, the remedy an-miasi mm. VS nnmamya Wm cum deusiulwnakmg pmsess. In penonmng ins mle the court is s.m..g VI its suvsrvisory lunwdicllan and rial in its avp-eI\a|aiunsdi:1¥on unmei Lee Fnakwzhx/Mlnlsn su.miM.m.s, Malaysla &AnL7v||iSE]1 MLJ 3o57.ms baml MH MI ml:-Mam WM! lha axamlsu a! any pnwer or discvvnnn V-MK‘)! ha: been aanlevrad en mi inlanor mum sammasimme lnhunll uv mher public siiimniy However‘ ma seam M me budy may be washed by an urder nl oemorav\vmsra1|)|hatnody has acted wamnm imismcunn; av mmisi body has exoudad its jurisdminn, DY (HI) body has «sued to comply wi|h me rules cl n.-mi iusncs m a can M13!‘ in. miss an agpncams 01 UV] meve V5 an enuv al ‘aw on lhl (ans M the rpmrd or III: dacislnn unvaaianabia in me Wsdnasbury sense In men. um»... cu - - -. in quuh Inc docisvnn which his unndy been mud: :1, Ihnl burly dlpnnds not an IV" docishzn llullbul an wmlhor the declslon wt: made uhn miss unllmy or unjustly In in. IXIIEIII oflhn drscrelk-an.‘ [Emphasis added] [34] It is an established princime men mm me High Com is equipped wiin powers in scrutinise me decision nm oniy ior process but aiso [or subslance: R Rama Chnnduu v The Inausmal court at Malaylll a. Anor [1991] 1 ML! us: [1997] 1 cu in (supra) Neuenheisss, there is 14 N mawxxownssnnsuvcisuw we s.n.i ...m.mm be used M mm .. mimiiuy sun. dun-nun! VI] .nunc pm In IS 1D 35 aisg aiipmei imppi-ram pgiisidemiuri met me couns musi bear in mine wiieii ieviewiiig me decision-making process omie housing mhunals and in «his case oie Tribunal miiunen Fembeli Rumah Malaysia (TFFR). The Federal Cam in deahng with claims filed under HDA In the case of PJD Rcgoncy Sdn aria v1’v|burulTumutan Pamb I Rumah 5 mm and occur Appnls [1021] 1 ML! no mated. ”[1]YM Phrlu “sucIIllIg\Illt1nn":nuwId him Honllni DIVIIWDIVIIIII (cnnlml ....i um. q) Am was ‘Oh! an ass“) and II: Illslllllfl suhsmluy lcgmnrlan .. in. Hull . Duviluplvwm (Comm! siia uuiisiiipi Rllllllflnlls was (“me am: 19:9") i. M71 muuly . llrvclful label. III aispuies peiwseii mime puysis ....a homing dlvnlopln, ii. slanlflcancn Ills In (in lvhroach taken W the court In Ila me all s M Justina |ll llvourot Inn npiiis nuyeis given the aispsiuy In p-miiiiiip pamnumui mum um: um mmliip dlvllopcrs. ms concert or socm. LEGISLATION [21] via: the arm was and Ms SUDSIGVBFY iegisipiipii aie saciai iegisipiimi is selflad neyuiip aspuisisssins aseisipiis Mme Fsdem cpuii iii Vemlv/ca Lee H. Ling 5. 0:: V Maxislgsr San 5na[2ui11 2 Mu 141 and Any wig Lu .4 Dr: V Mamm Kisijlhfiffllll Eandan Pammalvsn GIN Ksnuaan Tampatari 5 Ana! and nlhsr auDes!1l2U20l1 ML! 2511 [2D21] 2 ML] so in 76 mi The ioiip mi. pi a mum is llltvanlln [ls iM€IPl!1lfinlI Ian :15 at ai. IIIIDWFIIHIIWI Am: ma Illfl min. me lo!!! «me of me mu um pmvldil iii no IIHDIH-Illl imiis um I! nxlsts, iii Felllllsllllf Malaysia, my Ihl pmhcllnn of ml Imurnl oi piuevimis and my mum Lolllltflld III .i..m.. [291 me sgpiai sipiiineaiiss ai iiie slam]: is mmiei ppiiie um Dy ms wnm: pi sumaii LP iii sea Nausmi cprpomiian Sdn Bhd vLee Poh mica iisazi 2 MLJ 31 (‘sax rigupinai al in :4: n It epiiiiiign xiipwieaae mat in reoenl yeais. espeeiaily when gimiiiiiism manna gwlllg ripupiiig igaiis making in ppssinze rm pubhc saivaim In bulmw iiipiisy in 4-1. iiiueien psi siinum in may ripiiies, male was an upsurge W flfimflfldfflvhaulillgi and menu pmtaa mine puyersi M051 (2! wiipiii are psppie M iiipppsi mllflfll. cmiii up» and ppwemi aevaiupeis, Par/lame!!!Yaundflnooessalylorzflulateme saleofhouses 25 N mawzxownsmnsuvctsuw Nnln s.ii.i IHIVVDIY MU he pg... M mm we niimruflly MVM5 m.i.ii vn AFVLING WM! xs :0 15 :5 and plates! huyels by an.IL1mg the Ac! that was why Me 12 was ennclzfl nrd in IaimDuLIrpimgrlphI(u)and{v)|heIe0{.Wll7|VasDB91WE do no! agree mm Mr Cheumh than n was even In 2 dnehzpsr In gel vmmd mess Darzgmnhs hy me mdusmn ol such a dame ix clause 32 m we aureemecvl (ErvIDh2s\s mew [311 Ml loglshlmn ws wax m nature as may are made by a pub\m\y ebcisd body Th:|savd,nn(al\ Vogwslatwon1i‘mc\a|Ieg\sla|\urv' Asoclil llulsllllon 1: . um: hum luv . xpucfic m of Ilw: pm-.1 by m. luulllalun nu me purpose of ngnlnllna Ihe mlallonxhlp helvann . kl: cllu at plrsom Ind : stmnier class of pelsnns. Gwen umam aid: Jlwlyl nu um uppir hand aaalnsl (M mm dun to me lmqu-llly ofhnrgumlng pawn, m nuc- ns zompcllud ho lnkrw In nanam as mine of man. by provhilnn cunn. luunory ummms for mat w-am class. A ulnar an analogous .x.mp|. ix haw mi. noun nlupnlud ma nnaunnax Rnlaflnni Act 1931 m Mall Kinny ug... II M mmmn Fomnhun M:/aysla 5 Anal [ms] a mu :49 (‘Non some Mm‘). [4221 w. ngvea wnn ma vwws unm man Conn and the Com! ofAppeal n Vs lnla pnnmpna gr waw mat mm: a name pvascnbes e «um undsrme umhmna M mam vmlecuon‘ such vlnvlsmns may be cunuaclsd um cu provided mat me lama: am-we agreemenl are ummame nu ma nmameu (see Se: Housing at p. :4).- [Emphasis added] THE ISSUES 1‘) 1-‘ Resgunagg ngu «wed in eommy with Clause 27 and Clause 29 ohm: SPA nevore making the cum to me Tnbunal [35] In respect vflhe quesuon whelher a I:\a\m can be filed under 3 1EN man) onne HDA without firs! mmplymg with (Hausa 27 onne SPA, me President had amved at me nnamg ma facts that since one Applicant had gene «a me Properly mnenmng to carry out remmcauon works an the car porch to reclifylha defects, n haslu be \I1ztmsApplinan( had been noflfied ol |hs detects bylhe rmmenuye-s, The President s1aIed in Ihe Gmunds of Judgment’ N mavxxownsmnsuvctsuw we smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm 111 15 ‘FF daurn nuiansirnya mendakwa bahawa Iindakan pm osiam memfailkan Iunhmn adaiah pm-manna d... lnvilid kalaru iieds W13 dibankan rsneoiri denuiu seoenimene nsmmukkan Fananjmri mi Eeli Nnmun begml, pp dniern ireiersnaarinya ada manynlnkan Dude I1 i2 zaiai aekerieaereiie din wakil PP reieri meiawei ke Rumah ieiseourdenoan seesia mesiivrmesiri den pekenar maria dandan Mum uniurr mambalkl Kecacalan narnun eian dihenllkari oien WM oieii nu, adalah in.-iiadi davaun Tribunal esnawa veklranya up lrdak sda iiienerim. aou... bsvkanuvv dangan mdaxasiunan Dada car porchi bsgalmnna PP mien nanny kn Rumlh telubm oengsn iuiuen unluk memscahkan xamuia car north mmah PVM din lelelusnyn benuwan unluk rnenioina sernuia ssoeni ape yariu ieian dliuluskan daiam neiari oina... yang reian dliuiuskari [as] sinoe me issue on the compliance wnn ciauses 21 and 29 oi me SPA had aiready been decided on rnerns by lhe Courl L71 Aopeai. it was suamined bylhe 1" Respondent by viriue onne can iriai ine pariies were ordered to nave ma rnniiar remenrd before me Tribunai, irie iunsdiciion oi |heTribuna1w renear me rnanerwes inereiore inure: as me courmppaai had irnoliediy ruied that there was no neeeseicy «or me nemehuyers to exriausi me rauie under ciauses 27 and 29 ai me SPA before pursuing the claim al me Tnbunai. This coun agreed with iound that ii was in iine wiin iiie decision in «re ChrI5hrlnthlnI's CI . (supra) man ine SFA was not iniended co bar Arie oureiiaser irom seek g commun iaw reiiei in me tribunals. Therefurzi this Cuurl did nomnd any submission and merit on the iirs: issue laisedi on me issue onne case being ie—nIad wiiii a new number, one President in me Gvcurids ohludgrnenl si paragraph 31 had oorremiy exblained mar me Tribunai may make any nines ii inere was no specific provision ior a procedure, and in this regard, mere being nu rules ior remind of a ciairn man was sent back for a re-nearing. nie President aieo neid that me re-nearing was a mnlmualinn of ciairn No. 1 and, mereiore, it was not med oui onime (refer to paragraphs 33 — AU ol are Grounds oi Judgrnerii. Exnioii NTR-8. Enci 14). N Nk2PxKOWnSiNnGUvCGuw Nuns s.ii.i In-vihnrwm be used M mm ms anrii.ii-y MIME dnunvilnl Va nF\uNG WM! In ID as [37] in me case cf AB 1' Conslmction sdi-i BM! 5. Anor v Yrihunal nimuun Pernbe Rumlh is Or: [2011] 9 MLJ 153. the noun neid -nie iudlcial renew EDHITS iniervemisn eri ine gmlmdl ar1‘iiIaga\iIy' weuid bl svziizbie ii ii was shown me: ine deeisieri maker rind miscflnflmed any nnwisieri ore slalule er rnisapiiiied a piirieipie emerieiai iaw A deeisien Dfiuld he quasned on Ihe baiis en "Irrauana|I1Y' ii in was snewn inai inere was rid basis in suppoll iris «riding or «am, ov me edrrdusien reached was diamemmliy eenimy (0 svideriu en mum in where we dacliinll makev ned asked me wiervn fiueslinnx er Inken inie edrieideraiidri irralavlm nieiinrs and prninud relevam msners in my ereiusudn M ine mnieiisi sereie nie. and es discussed above, (be flacliion and award vim: Inburiai was neueinied hy any iiiegalih/i imatianainy or Fiflcsduval impropriety -. ierripnssis addedi (ii) Applicani was denied an epepnunig [0 he igeiiy regrssemed in iiie Tribunei graceedms [:3] Having gone through me raisvam deeiinieriis in me Amdaiiiis and Grounds DfJudgmsrIL Hound mere was nd prdcedurai impropriety as the President had rigncniiiy exercised riei diszlreliun when she aliowed iegai represeniaiien es prdvided ier in s16U pi me HDA before the hearing on in B 2:22 Trie President decided on the meriis oi ine arguments by both sides and dismissed me pnieciions en jurisdictional issue As she had decided that the hearing oi me deiecis weuie only iriveive iecmai issues, iegsi represenvaiion was not neoessary as me law sieied it weiiid eriiy be snowed ii there were eeinpiex issues ei iew and dne pany will suffel severe nnerieai iierdsnip. (iiii IO iiie me A rid iieani was denied me o nuni by me Tritiunai venue [as] The Fresrdeni again exercised ner diselelion by nei allowing the Amended neienee to be med very ieie by me Applicam allerthe ease was 2: N Nk2PzKOWnSiNnGU\ICGuw Nuns s.n.i n-vihnrwm be used is mm he sriiimii-i siiii. dun-mm via nFiuNG Wm! 10 15 15 3n remed in March 2022, almost 5 monlns lo be Dreclse The Applleanl ccmpialned lnaune conlenvs orme 2022 Technical Report was very much slrnilar lo lne Technlcal Reporl In 2019. Therefore, we calm oplned lnal me Applicant had all me lune ln ma world la craft lna Delanee s1atement basefl on the firs! Tachnlcal Reporl smea ll was lna only repun avarlable al lna tlme ol re»llIlng of me claim and may mu rml engage men awn mpens lo come up wlln a dlflerent lechnlual reporl which may or may nol be substantially dllferenl lrurn me lrl~house prepared reporl. Al page 25 al lna Males or Pmceedlngs. lhe Presldenl ruled lnal s lscrlnieal lnspsnlon would be wnducleu and me Iisl ol deleels would be me same as me nrevious Iisl less llerns 4 and 5 wnlen were wllnarawn. Tlns flsclslon was corrael as me Trlburlal snauld nal lake lnlo oensmerallan any new aareels (ll any) wnen ma clalm was a rehearing or lna firs1 elalrn I did see any procedural lmpropnely also in ms ruling bylhe Presldenl Therefore, there was no basls la oornplaln that I| had been darned me ngm lo file me Amended balance. [An] Slmllar lssues were ralsed In me Gmupon Sdn Bhd v. Tribunnl runcuun Perlaaunl & Anor (201511 LN5 555; (20151 5 AMR :14, and «he wurl held as loncms: -my Fovoumvletenessr me Applicanl nas Mm alnagea mar i| has bean damod me mm to make any prunar aerenee and exnbnanan Defers ma Flm Reswndaml meralere rn bwach or nalural Austlce mac aflraclsd Dmneauml lmpmpntly l:l|lvlg Rnhana ale Amfin 5. Am)! v Unlvsrslly Sims malnysla [1968] 2 on Rap: 390‘ uses; 1 MLJ 4.57 and Malaysia Almns Symm arm v wan Sahdl Wan Muslala [201 511 cm 225 Tnera must however be oununl av-aenoe lo supnan mls serious allegalmn pamenlany Ihs nails 04 pmnssdlngs at me First Respunaenl. n ls lnsurllelanl merely on Du| up a lmllntaml ham manaun as mm case neraln .- hcant wa ied o orlunll lo nmss-sxamlns the wnnaas of are 1* Resgunderll (‘VI N maPzKownssNnsuvc13uw ma s.n.l n-vlhnrwm be used m mm ms nrwlnnllly sun. flan-vlnrrl VI] aFluNG wnxl 15 [41] cieariy there was no rrrerit in this issue as it was never raised during the re-hearing oi the ctarnr in Claim Na. 2 Eesides, train the Notes 04 Proceedings the wttneeses were oniy the N Respondent and the Applicant tor each case. The Appiroant was ooservao (From the Notes) to have asked the 1“ Respandem questions and the iatter responded‘ and viaenrersa. The prooeedings in the Tribunal was intended to oe srrnphhed as aan oe seen VII the provisions of s tow oi the HDA and it was not a ooun of law‘ to ensure speedy and economical resoiution oi the disputes between hcmebuyers and housing developers This court noted aieo that the Appiicant atnrost throughout the proceedings over a tow days Kept harping on the issue that the respondents did not taiiow the procedures VII the SPA and did not give the list oi detects. The tact that the Apptuant was present ounng Ihe Teohnroai Inspection was oiear evidenma oi its pantarp to the nexllewtssues raised in regard to the Teohnrsai Reporr and costing Estimation. Leggnicai Repgrl and Casting Estimation reheo on by the second Tribunet was detective in nature ' n in the pmcsedings and discussions an—sile. This bvings me (V) [421 The complaint was that the report was similar, atrnoet word iorwordr with the 2019 report. Why did the Appiioant, having the upper hand in |his area and suiueet-nratter. did not engage its own consultant and me its technical report and castings in preparaltun of the case? They ooutd have done this as earty as when the Cutm L:v1AppealurderedIh2 rehearing in Navemher 2021 out instead they waited until a year later to me an Amended neienoe (not a teohnrcai reportt. The order tor re-hearing was to eneote Dania to have the oispttte tried oeiore the President tas opposed to the failed mediation by the previous Tribunal) and proper assessment or the delscls rnade tor reenneation warks. The court at In an NIr2PxKoWnSsNnGtJvcI3uw -use smut In-vthnrvtm re used M mm ms pflmnaiily minis dun-mm wa .rrurto wrui [51 The subseauem evens that Ionk phase in «ms saga may be axmamed best m we unmnonogy below: No. um Evnnllfinfuuncn 2: AIM No.1 A1 me wanna; 1 3: 10.2015 1-* Rswonflsnl Wed a dam: wnh me nihunm {Nu n-PR/;vuw7(rm) um. . my cum Chang Vang filed men a dam wllh me Tnburml (Na TYPE/AIONSU)/15) an me am — Buyer um Chin Yes riled a main wilt: ma Yribulm mo rrpmmuavqrywat mum: date 1:! mm unknawn) 2 21 11.101 5 Avnucam filed mam anew: that u an ml renew: Ms! L11 anten- 3 21 11 ms Fum mm at rrmunax — Pmsmem Enema! me mm m m. Lxsl 04 Mom : 23 n ma Thu buyers rm L151 ov Name as dvreded by Pmsmanl ofTnbuna|I\:nnumsde1a5ts uu\Isctwu\y 5 25 «2 2m Durlnu m-umxun, me Dames coma ml reach 3 nlilsmenl and ma Platinum dvraasd foroanam swam In In doll: by (ha In-mule n-cnnuu Team 1 Ya inspen um p-up-mu and plspam ruvofls u. Fin My: mum Te1:hmci\ Tanmm mum and Mmim on me name: Nuts Premm wit Informed cm the Avvl\mm‘s wolkurs amem ms vrwamas to carry um Isaak wants an vvzzma km a mwarx order ms Issued an 171 ms 5 2312019 umcan Tum lnwscled me pmparlln mended nyme huytn and m. Appxu-vrs -upymmazm Woo mac 1 2n 2 2m: T5dwIIulRawJ1\(ijfinI\Is5d and exnamea «me names mm a ommg Enmahon prwarsd by Tschmcal Team 4 sm mavxxownswnsuvceuw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 13 1; an as Apnea! nrder did not stale that the 2019 Technical Repnrl i|se|l was dsfsc1\ve.Agam, um Court mu not find any prucedural impropriety on the Fresidsnfs decismn herein [43] Vn the case of Luanda D-volopmom Sdn Bhd lwn Tribunal Yuntutall Pembali Rumnh dun I-in-Iain [2019] MLJU 1642, the court he\d' -ms] um adalah kemna Femahnn sendin ‘em. mangamhfl buhaglsn dawn Dememlamn en mm flan hersemlu sam 5\as.aLan din Demsnksun iakmkal dwankan clan Dasukan teknlkm Raspdnden Panama ax mana lam unmn Pamankian Tekmka\ belsama aenuananwmn sehumavxla umuxnamnaman man dlvsdlakzn dan dlbemanslkan mas: Dandengaran m TIFR. Penmhan wga udnk mengnmukakan wabamng hlmahan llmzdap Vapuran (aruhm. my Fakla kes Km adamh Ie kulang sima dengun ks: Pam Naluw Deve\oI>me«lSdn and vsyalazuva mnu Fnuzi A19nrmugIigi[2fl15]MLJU 922 Dalam kas teriabul. sekumpman pemhefl rumah Ielah memmun kas pamhalkan canned: vemanu alas Kecacalan Iumah meneks nun (alah membanarkan oumman pevnbeirvembeix Pemalu lelah mamiaflkan sam pemmhnnill Savukan Klhaklmzn Innudap ksplmlsan 1-rm Gan salah ialu Vsu yang dubangkulkan nah}: same .1. pembelx mmah dwkzbeudakl ‘uxhauflld the avenue‘ mu mpemnlukkan an nawah mauaa 25 Na |JaduaIG panam- Peraluran Pembemlunsn (KHNnIan .s Penesenan) 1959] sebelum mammal tuntulan danvada Pemaju din sehulum membualmnlman denqan av rm: [A1]MahkamalI vanan manolak psrmuhonan Semakan Kenakmuan Pemalu flan memuluskan sepsm yang henkul 1241 he respomems .1»: Warm and mmpllm |u um appuum about me mama and Ieuuesx me appumx m rectify me aaraaa wmpbinea u was not mspuraa mm the appucam an some mom works am run an The resuonflanls was not sallsfled Mm ma way mum me appuaam mm awed unlme renmcamna works‘ and‘ Instead a! repeatedly mm back to the Ivpham to: lump. ma vaiporuianti went to ma TTFR seeking mmvefimy mmpsllszmnn [251 me applmmaaa ml maaa nnyabjswon or vaurvs na mm m regard m clause 2:-.(2> al the Sales and Pmcmsu Agmsmenl (scnacuxa :3; at me rrPR The apm.«,a-u vmcaedsd mm the hazmng a« the rm: and pamdualed In me mmcflons by Ike Prasldanl A yam xruparmn was camed out narwean ma Tnhnnals lechnlw team and the mpvasnnlalwui at Ma appllunl anfl me vespondsnls 31 am mawzxownsmnsuvceuw "Nuns saw n-nhnrwm be used a mm In: nrW\nnH|:I MIN: dun-mm VII muNG v-vrm In In [231 ‘ms avnllmril could rim sir rrra mags miss iris nlgumem mm in. resimnoeriis oio M1 oorrioly win clause 2542) oi the SPA (Schedule 9) I arn oiina View inaiirie apallesni should be esioopea lmm relyirra on ina argirrrisnimsirne responnanis snoiria have exhaus|ed me ready rarnody under in. said ulausl 2512), aesairse in ma rim pleas me nr ind unuolldilivnaiiy pamclpsisd in in. inounai preaeearngs: (vii cosiirrg Esirrnairon which was based on FWD i:as1s fig me high and axoass oi ma busts n are SPA [44] on mrs issue, me Presicleni in the Grounds oi Jirogrneni at paragraph a2 reiers Since the fiist claim was filed in 2019, and we re- hearing in 2022. it was rroied by me couri iriai Ihe cusis 0! building rrieieriais would have risen. And we was s laoi Ihal me Applicant as a irousing developer was very well-versed wiirr arm eoulo nor deny. li may had senleo inis claim in zuiei iiie oosis for reciiflcauon oi «lie oeiecis would have rerrrarrieo irrroer RMao,om.no. As iira Applicant did namle its own cost asiirnaias, the Prasioeni rignily based nar award on me arriouni airailaale in me Cushng Eshmallon wiiicrr acmmpanisd me Technical Rapnrl ano parlies had been made aware or me iigirras, unlike in the claim No 1 pmeeeoirrgs The CDUI1 did rrai find any irrsiionaliry or procedural irriproprieiy or proporliorisliry (ior ilrai mailer) in me oeeision- making process aideierrriinino the arrrouni oi awsiro. (vii) Triere was no basis ior lne Tribunal to make Award N 2 arm me oeorsion was so unreasonable lnal no oirrar raasonabla i unal would nave arrived at me sarrre mic [45] i have oorniairieu ma 2 lasi eerrrplaine as may can be aiioresseo fngether iiere Upuri scmfi no me wliala Notes oi Proeeeoings and Gvounds auudgnierrl. i did nci find line: the award was so unreasonable mar no airier veasonabie tribunal would have arrived ai ins sarrre logic. 32 SN Nk2PxKOWDSiNnGUvCGuw «-rise s.n.i n-vihnrwm is used M mm s. snrin.iiry MIME dun-vinril wa nFiuNG WM! 15 In 15 The decision-maker had dealt with the legal issues at the preliminary stage where legsl represenuition had been allowed in. Then she prseeeded to hear the eornplsint. ordered a Technical inspection by the ln-hause iechnlval team (as they wnuld he a neutral technical learn from the respective government agency)i used the inierinati n the new Technical Report to make a deeision en the award ler rectmcalidn wurks and also in the process, exercised her disoretion in ad stenng the provisions :11 the law she also made certain findings oi ism irein her examination oi the evidence available in the case. [46] Despite the Applicant arguing that there were no defeds seen in the photographs, they themselves attmlttett to have gone to the pmperlies ready to hack uie carporeh flctor |o rectriy the detects Mereover, the Applicant also admitted that there were detect ' ‘ems 2, 3 and 5 Theretore, the evidence was clear and undisputed that the huildini; plans warn hat complied with. The main eohiplaint. the earporoh was not built in accordance with the Approval Plan and bmchnu and ms in fact dl etlva due to wnoer lloodini; it when it rulrlod. [471 The Applicant submitted that it had oempiied with the building by- laws and henee, the result was as the ooniptaints by the 3 huusebuyers (and later became 2 rasporlt1ents).Re.sipsaIoqultl2r Tliething speaks tar itselt. The “pmIesls“ made by the Applicant in respect oi the "non. compliance" with the SPA pminsions was to delay the puweedlrlgs and payment tn the respondents. I iound there was no merit to this complalm/Lssue and no illegality, irrationality end ptoeedursl impropriety by the Tribunal in dispesing the claims in lavour oi the respondents. The President has made speeine finding oi leets in the Award No. 2. There is he reason tor the court to lhtarlere with ILS nndings. 3; SN lilaPzl<owllssNnsuvcI3uw -one s.n.i 1-vlhnrwlll se in... is mm the snni.ii-y MVMS dnunvlnrll vta nFluNG Wflxl an In N as [43] To rexterate, amnough me Applicant argued mere was pnmedrrrax mlpropnely by me Tnhunafs remsax In advml me Amended nelenoe. nevertheless x tednd that are President rrad exercised rrer drscrecron as preyrded farm 516W enne HDA Time was olessenoe beanng in mm that N was a re»heamIg onrre ongmal clarms mere than 3 years aflerlhey were med The Trrbunax nad dmwulxy considered he only evidence avsuame an (he technical rnaners. narnsxy me Teehnxcal Repen and Cosnng Eeurnarron, m order Io address me ndrnemryers' complaints Hence‘ I dwd not find any reasename nesrs |o incerrere wim we de ' on oi une Tnhunal as It had not oocasluned a lmsuamage nl rusrice. [49] Even rr mere neu been an enurm the de on-making process by not aflowing the Amended nerenee in, me award should nor be struck down as semen in the case or Hrznndr bl: nerrreerr y Knmon Mllhnd ed‘ Lnarnlug cerrm [man 3 MLJ 124 wnere u was held: ‘I131 Beml e svechllsl my, me 'mhun|I hn been cnnfernd w'Ih exrreerdnnary ewers to de speedy 1-mice vor cnnsumels. A: sum, nr rrwerde srrorrnd nm N nnrerr down save In lhe vans! er CI es, wrrere n has rn’ rrummed wrnu prevmen M me An In errerr a way (9 Means: .n !n]uln'c rm noun: errerrld ee ever It dnrl mar eenrdrrnr re nm : rernedy ms: rs . hln er nfviqm. II I: : reemronery rern dy. u re nut every uvor M In: eorrrrrrrned try .n rnverrnr lzibunll men errrruu lb: mum cerrn In need: cenlor-Irl. u must b: demonswmgd mm the aver nee ocuiloned an lrllnsflce In a brand and general sense. ms Dfindme was lam own by me Fadeva\ Court m Hon marry Ngen v Mahkamah Femsahaan Mmaym: 5. Anov[1935)3 MLJ sea 3 and rn R Rama crrendren y The lndus|r!a\ cerrn er Mivayxwa L Amr[1597] 1 MLJ 145 wrrere ms fuliuwmg passage rn me iudgmem cl Bass 4 rn Sangmm Smgh y Elsclmn Tnbunal AIR 1955 so 425 was anmred Mm avDr\wa\ 1rran_mwe~er.rs ner to say mar me .nnsd- rren [r us cemmnn] wru he exemsed vmenevermece Is an endr Mlaw. The High Conn: de nut, and srrduud nor, an as owns dr apnea: under an 225. rnerr eewers are Dumb’ drscretrdrrary and meugn nu Vlmns can be blamed upun Aha| duscrelmn r\mus1 ha exersrssd along vawgnlzsd lmsiand nal avbllmnlyr and an: enrre Iwmulmns Ampwxad by me mun: an Vmmpehtes rs lnal an n mawxxownsmnsuvctsuw nae sum ...n.r MU re used m mm re DVWMIWY mm; dun-mm wa enum wrm m 15 :5 may V'II"lID|1XBlEViB|UVV5d\¢|\|)V||H'Ni aass of case umass substznnzl miushoe ms ensued, car N we» he snwo.YlIsyvI1|\nala\|L7wlIIsmsulves m be turned mm mum: uuppem or vevlsmn m :e| nghl mum army: cl ‘aw vmich an no! mama iruusuue m a mum um gmmx sense, rm, mom rm Vewslalure can Ampuse l\m\IaIAnns on Ihase mns1.iluliann\ Wwers n \s a sound Exercise ov mscvehon |o bear Vn mhufl me policy at the veg-name «n have msvmss about mess spam: nums deemed as speadfly as my be. Tnemvm, wm pen:-ans should not he ugmw emennmed ... IN: claxs cl case ‘ [Emphasws added] CONCLUSION [50] The Ap cam has lafled to prove that the Award cfthe Tribune! was made illegaHy the above oansldaralions‘ ms com dismissed the apphcalmn lnr mdicial afionally orwmh preceaurax wrnvrvnnefiy Premlsed upcn rswew wun costs Dated 1c Decnmbor 202: Now Ruworu aim; Md’. Numlu Judicial Cummlsslonnr Hiuh court. Tanning Form: gag cam; Mr. Ch-ah Sau Venn Mlurl. K )1 Wang, Chln a. one h, lpnh For nn 1" Rngondom: Mr. Rohan Anson Jeylbalah In Ms. Tech V91: V59 Mlssrs. Harold a Lam Pmnmmp, Kuuln Lumpnr 35 N mawxxownssnnsuvctsuw um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm 19321113 Pvasmam afluwad 1-I R5viD::IIden1’s_claln1 and aramea hum mason on and cost: RM1ou no 1-mm Na. 1) . Euyav cm Chang Vang granted RM:u:.uoo no and mu: RM2oo Dn — Buys! Um cmn Yee granled mzmo on Ind mans RM1an.m) 12.4.2111; A..p11um 111.11 . JR APP|1uIioII("JR1"laHhs mums Hwh Own Against the Hansen and named an 3 buym and |ha Tribune! m Ease Nns AB~2§-I-04I2a1B,AE-as muzm and AB-25»!-Il4J‘2D1I 1n 952011 Plesmenl mmmmax-1 G/mums auuagmenn rsxuod 11 5.12.2019 12.2.2029 5 3.2u2o Hannng 111 1:1. JR1 won 111- prmnnui Judrcm Ccmmissmvet 12. 22.1.mo n.=1.1n.. 1:1 flu pvvvloux mnmr Cummlulalluwas 11.1mm nllmtlnmhn Appllcnnft 1: .1» cniun and m1.m1 c.111m11 ...1...uw.m Na. 1 wllh nut: 13 19321720 1- Respondent cm cm“ ‘(mug and um emu ‘(be men mm amaneun In me Conn fl{Appea|agiim1Ihe daemon amen 22.1.2a2n 1.. A9963! Nns. IvnI(A)-4Ia— us/znzu. AMAAHI1-as/zozu and ArnI(AHI2— uatzuzu. vaivawvdy 14 21 921121 1o 11 m1 Nuanml am. 3 awsal: alme Cmm MNFDGHI 15. 1111.2u21 umm 01 Me com cl Apvaalz 'Maka ada\ah mpen.11am«.a.. banawa 5.-u perimah Cumumn mn.nm.. umuk mmnamuan kspnlussn Rupmden Kodua 11. Mahkaman1'Ingq\ dalam Award no TIFR/0947471115 belunkh 1932019 flan Kai dukembafikan mm Respondun Kndua mm dlhlnar-aka» semula bemenaan 15.. mm." dnn kox hawk pun Jhem was no nrdsras 1:. mm 1a 121 2m 1-: Respondent 13.11. Ieuenn the Tribunal ta rsqusfl for the case 11: 1» re-heard 1.1 accordance WNW 111. mm 5.1 (ha own M AvDsa\ 17 ‘ 2a.2.2n22 The mum: replwed 1.7 111. 1.1131 and mslmclad «M 1“ Rasflfindem m rerme Enmng 1 lSLaxemer1117lCIa1mHor Ina case In be reheam and la wmvlete Boring 15 for sm mawxxownswnsuvceuw 5 mm. s.1.1...m.m111... .1... 1: my 1... 11111.11-1 mm: dun-mm VII .mm v-max Demulssbn 1a be Iepmsenlefl by mung» nmmed 111.1 ms case Irwulved cnmvlex new Issues and mac ellher Dafly(s)w1zu\dVacsssvem financ\aIdflficumes|H1wasr\a| ruprssenlad by counis1.Tmi wuuld he .11 me 11111212111111 ml 11.. 1211111115111 cum N011 Af ma maum. 24 3 21122 The 1-1 Resrm1den| filed Inn Stallmem 111 121.1111 tfimarfl 1) allhe Tn|7una\ 1n zwuraance Mm me co1111omwea1 di?lenn\Fnn\dar1x 111 21 4 21122 The Apnncam mad ms Duvenca 1:11:79 2) «me: 11 21.1.1111 :5.“ ul Elvckwsurn 2) 2n. 2: 5 21122 The 11119112111 avbhed moesmvy for men revmumauun m arcne 1Dr:\1n1mary obmun) on me Iisue at 1». vandnw 111 me Vmoesdlw mm by (M 1» Respvlvdam as 1 WI: 1. wnluvwhon nllhs Cowl 94 AW“: mder 1111 me unsem be Ieheird 21. 31121122 The 1“ Rswondsnl moa ma Dafanua to Coumerclalm (Bulung 3) (mm Exhlhll 13 of Endusmi 2) 22, 111521122 The President 11111111511111 ms pw11m1naryu1:1e-.11on ov me Ap|I\Ican| a: 11 was run 111 wmraverllmn 11¢ Ins cam 94 Appéll mdav 1=...1.1.n1 11.111.11.11 5 Tachm:a\ lnspQI:1I:lI .1 me pmvemes The 121211115111 am .111 m| aHaw legal velzresematlan at me i1AI\hea1Ina 11.. Apnnmn .1111 nm e11.11¢n1m11. 111111111: 23 1 921122 1aam1u1 Inspeclmn 3111.: pmpema 111 1:1. yluanue nf (he Ienresenlahves cl me 1- Reswndenl and Ihe Avmlmm me mm report was Quashed by lhe High com on 22 1 2:12») 2: 1211121122 1aa1n11.a1 lnspsclkm Ravon Issued and cax\Esvima1Inn Var ma rams 25 1 11 21122 111: Appumx iltanplzd 11; file an Am-1.11 umnu based on me Iepcll 11:1»; Tenhmml Inspection am 11111 was mm 1.» reierm Ihe Presiden|1:\Ihe hemmg 25, 3.11 21122 Danna ma Manny. ma Fvasndam heard me avphcalwn 111 1111...: ms Dalancl hm dkmwuad 111111111. Mug (5 memm am the Burma 1 was Ned) Fremdem ma m1 uflnw Var 1111111111 1911.: quesmem m be veflervedmme 111911 com and vmeeeded wnn Ihe heating 5 sm mzwxxownswnsuvceuw mm. 5.1.1 ...11.m111 .. .1... 11 my 1... 11111.11-y mm: dnuumnl VII .m1c p-711.1 uvdsrforma mm 11 In re-heard (Mario 211111111 F513’ of snmurs 2) Huang ma 1;: 11 12:12: [Merv a‘ ‘Z7 15.|I.lJJZZ Dcclllon on an 1" Resvonflenrs clnlm. HI wls Iwlnild RM3D,30|J.I)|l (Award No. 2} 2a 5.12 am Avplwcahon lav Weave mmu was mad at me mm nan Conn. Laava gramad on 11.21123 W ' s,s.2u23 Heaflni nunz avnucaunn an 10 m 2023 Demsmn on mz mm me cam dismwued m. zvnhcamn Mlh onsu [e] The complaints or \isIcide¢eL1s were as laflows: news news | LOCAYICN I F: sh floor Vuvsi mak ram: dinner‘ Ddan Car Damn dan bemkang IV Facial COPVIU hank dlbuat Devan flan belakaflfi mum:-9 Vuar m mu Utama, um»; um um, Ian so mm. Pmlu mama .m..._ 1... 20mm IV, Anak var-99a kuuny satn‘ Hdak ma denaan Luzrblhk mm Pllin mu, lveudvoom mu.» um mama rendah dam hdak simvaw zmmm ..;.em damn! [Man V mm dam m .1: mum. Iuar dun .42.»... Dwudlrvg admah um sempuma .1 HoHm.r .1. Jubm Iamai din Jubm dmdmG Kemasan mmmu [7] The cmm has had me nppummily to peruse me Grounds oi Judgmem oflhe learned Judicial Ccmmisswoner m the JRI decxsxon where he lmmd than me President ov me firsz lnbunal which heard Claim No. 1 m 2019 «en mm errors and acted beyond N3 jurisdlcunn when the President made Award Na. 1. He had oormuctea a medlamon which was unsuccessful but men omeren1|ha|tl1s first Temnical commmee Repun was binding on the parties when may ma nut have the casting that came with the findmgs oi the oommillee Moreover, it was obvious that the 7 sm mawxxownswnsuvceuw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 15 20 Fresrdenmnnetrrannbunan had prepared nrs grulmds ufludgmenl (which was later annared to the reamed Judicial cernrnrssrprrera Grmmds cf Judgment lar ease er rererenee) AFTER he read me Appniaarrrs Alfldavfl in Suppnrl pr me JR1 apprrcarrdrr Tne learned Jud‘rc\a\ cornrrussroner auewed me JR1 appnaacrorr for cempran pr Award No. 1 wnn costs. The Cnufl dc Appeal set asrde the deersrorr or me Hrgn Com by ordering ior me rerrearmg or the p ’ s. Howeverr rr rs noted mar me ceurr or Appear m effect agreed wrcn me cemorarr order In respect of Award Nu. 1 when rt ordered me teuowrrrg 'Meka adalan drperirrranxan hanawa sand gerimah cempran dmenarkan un|uk rnarrrpacalxan kegulusan Raspgndgn Kedua dr Mahkamah Ti i dararn Award nu TTPRID3a$7(T|/18 bsnankh 19 a 2019 dan kes drkemhalikan kepada Responder: Kedua unluk ' cavakan semwa berkenaan rsu kecacalan darr kos bark puIm'. [3] agam mad the second JR apnlmauan as may nad peen unapre up erdey zrre vruirs oi rnerr miganon men the seoarm Trrmrnar mar reneard me dawns nad deemed rn merr cavour. Aaeerdrrrg (0 ma rasppndards, they The Reapandenra (homebuyers) were dismayed wnan me Apprrcarrr were unapra lo rnrwe Inlu rnarr new names, or rent am we propemes or sen «narn sinpa ub ng vacant passessipn in ma (Enclosure M. paragraph 51). CAUSE PAPERS FOR THE HEARING OF JR2 APPLICATION [91 Tne rerevanr cause papers In JR2 appneaudrr were as roupws. r. Applicant‘: Application for Judrpiau Rawew (Ex—ParIe| dated 3.12 2G22(Em:1nsure 1), n sw rwamownsewsuvpaaw -we s.n.r n-nhnrwm re used a vanfly ma pnmnauly mm: dun-mm wa anurm Wm 15 m vit VHI Appltcartfs Nfldavtt in support amrrrtea by wee Vsw Jct an 5.12 2u22 (Enetoeure 2); statement pursuant to Order 53 r. 3(2) pnne Rules at Cwurl 2012 dalsd 3.12.2022 (Enclosure 3). Nottee D1 Heanng dated 5.1.2923 (Enclosure 3), Quiet dated 3 1,2023 (Enclosure to): 1" Rupundenrs Atvtdavit tn Reply atfitmed by Ng Ttahg Ruert on 2.2.2023 (Enclosure 11): Appttcrrrtts Amaavtt in Reply (1) afflmted by Woo Yew Jr: on ts 2.2023 (Enclosure 13). 1“ Respondertfs Amttevtt tn Repty (2; afltfmsd by Ng Tinng Ruan on 23.4.2023 (Encteeure 14), and Appllcanrs Amtta n Repty (2) ettrrnted by Woo vew Jo on 13.5 2023 (Enclosure 1st GROgND§ FDR JUD CIAL REVIEW [10] The Appltcant sought an order of Cerliorari to quash Award. No 2 because: (6) lb) 16) the 1" Respondent had tetted te enrnpty wttn Clause 27 and Clause 29 of the SPA taetore making the etetrn |a the Tribunal; the Apphcent was dented an opportunity In be tegetty represented tn the Trtptrnet pmoeedings. rne Apphcanl was dented the opportunity to me the Amended Detenae by the Tribunal: e stn NIt2PxKoWnSsNDGUvcI3uw -we s.n.t n-vthnrwm re tr... m mm ms nflmnnttly MVMS dun-vtnnt VI] nFtt.ING Wm! ttt In 15 16) (El (9) ('1) the Appltoartt was ttantett opportttttlry to orossexarntna tna wflness mine 1" Respnndent tne Teonntoal Report and cosrtng Esttmallon relied on by me seoontt Trtttttnal was dareotttte tn nature: the casting Estlmallon which was based on the Pttbltc wcrxs Deparlmerll costs were too ntgn and in excess ottne oos|s tn the SPA: (hale was no bests tor the Trtattnal la maka Award No 2, and me use on was so unreasnnahla met no utner reasonable tribunal would have arrtvett at the sante logtc [11] me Apphcanfs written submlsslons were in Encloures 19 and 2t whereas tne 1- Re‘5punden('s wrtlten submissions were tn Enclosures I7 and 2: Alma tttttset, tna Applloanr raised tne Issue tnet ttta Tribunal nad pvooeeded on trte wrong looting by disobeying tne order at me court at Appeal tnat trte case be-reheard when l(lns(r\.tcIed(hs1‘ Respondent to re-Ne the Clallrl. Pursuant thereto, It was submltlad that the 1" Respondent nad nreacnett trts movislon at s.1eN(2) as the Borang 1 In ctatrrt No. 2 was ttled mare lnatt 12 ntontns or me detect liaotlny penod. Tne saltt s.tsNt2) provides: ‘tzmto tttntdtcnort ottna rrtnttrtsl snstt be ltntttstt to a uatttt th2| ls hasefl on a CRLASE ot notton nrlxmg lrotn tn. ml: and attronsstt zgteetrt-nt entered trtto between Ihs nornamtyar and Inn rtottstna develoner V/mch is blmlfihl by n mrttetsuysr not late! than twelve mormlsvmm— (at tne date at asttanae oltne Denlficar: ot oontplutton and oorrtpltance lurthe ndttslrtg aocommaflaflnrl arms Eflmman Vacllmel antte nottstng ttoaotrttrtodenen Imandsd tor Subdtvlslurl. wvtlcnever s later: ttt stn NIt2PxKOWDSiNnGU\ICGuw «-we s.n.t n-vlhnrwm as tn... m mm the trtttnttty sun. dun-mm n. AFVLING v-mat

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

D-01(A)-540-07/2022

PERAYU 1. ) AHMAD BIN MD ZAIN 2. ) MOHD RIDHUAN BIN AHMAD RESPONDEN Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG)

The above judgment (Judgment) concerns an appeal to the Court of Appeal (CA) against a decision of the High Court (HC) [referred to the HC (Land Reference) by the Land Administrator (LA) after the LA has conducted an inquiry and made an award of compensation for land acquired (Acquired Land) under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA)]. The following issues are discussed in the Judgment, among others:(a) does the proviso to s 49(1) LAA bar appeals to CA from HC’s decisions on Land References?;(b) whether the HC should have considered the following matters in the Land Reference –(i) previous awards made by the LA for the acquisition of lands near the Acquired Land;(ii) the effect of severance of the remaining land (after the land acquisition);(iii) the injury suffered by the co-owners of the remaining land (Appellants) due to the land acquisition (“injurious affection”); and(iv) the planting of coconut trees and the operation of a fresh water fish farm on the Acquired Land (which was contrary to the express condition of land use, ie., the land should only be used for the cultivation of rubber trees); and (c) can the HC –(i) forfeit the deposit of Land Reference furnished by the Appellants under s 39(1) LAA; and(ii) order the Appellants to pay the assessors’ fees?

19/12/2023

YA Datuk Wong Kian KheongKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Datuk Azimah binti OmarYA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=92885397-ec44-472a-83ce-2688875d0d7b&Inline=true

19/12/2023 14:36:03 D-01(A)-540-07/2022 Kand. 30 S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N l1OIkkTsKkeDziaIh10New **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal |>—u1(1x)—5an—u7/2:122 Kand. 36 19/12/2012 ,4 as 04 mum mmmm mvum muvsu (alums nus; mvum) ruwm sum >40 mm 54a mm ANTARA 1. mun am Mn. um (No. K»: s:o1:o—o:.s45o) 2. Mann mnuum am AHMAD (No. KIP: wlwt-a:.51I'.u wsxavu-wsruwu news»: mun" KETUA FENGARAH mun a. mum NEGERI xsumm RESPONDEN Dalam Mahkamah mggv Mmaya aw Kala mm Kamm mrm Nzflm Ru ukan Tanah Nu uA—151s4)a/2019 Amau a Ahmad am Md law (No. K/P: 520730035459} 2 mm Rwdhuan Em Ahmad (No. K/F 8010014735193} . Parayu-Peravll Dangan Jabalan Kama Pengamh Tanah A Galuan Megan Kemnlan Responaenl KORAM: vnzzsn um mm» mean ma Azmm own, nun wouc KIAN manna, mm ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN A. Pongambnan mm 1 Melalui Wana Kemaan Negeri Keklnlan berunkh 13 1.2015 (Wan: nrubul). Fmak Berkuasa Negeri Keraman (PEN) Celah mangamm 1 N uum.xk.uz‘.ma~gw mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. mm.“-y mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm lanah se\uas 1.534 hek|ar (Taruh Dlambll Ilvnbul) da\am La! 1045, Geran 29933, Muklm Kelerah Timur, Jajahan Kata Bahm, Keuanean (mun mubm) a. Dav./ah ma Pengambxlan Tanzh 1960 (AFT) untuk pembmaan Lebuhraya Kov/cu Eahru ks Kuala K (P-nuambllan Tanah tersobut) Per-ayu-perayu m avas mempakan psmmk-pemmk barsama (ca- pmpnslors) Tanah lsrsebut flalam banagxanmanagxan yang berikm my Perayu Panama mem «/2 bahagwan Tanah |ersebuL dan (2) Ferayu Kedua mermhkl 1/6 bahagwan Tanah tersabul. slumn oloh Punudblrunah Lr) Susman danpada Pengambxlan Tanah lersebul, PT lelah menjalankan salu swasalan menurul s 12 APT. Eemubung jumlih pampasan yang kena dibayar umuk Pengambuan Tanan lersebul, FT «swan membual award yang henkul, antara lain. (1) PT te\ah msmhual kepulusan nflaw Tanah Diamb1Hersebul\a\ah RM113A0 semetzv Dersegl Isn-pt [NlIn| Pr (mun Dlambll magnum]: 12) bemasarkan Nilai PT (Tanah Diambil larsebul), jumlah pampasan unluk semua pemlhk bersarna Tanah Dmmbfl lersebul (lermasuk Parayu-perayu) Ialah RMw3e,55<s.nu [Jumhh Pamplun PT (mm. Diambil Iornbu()], (5) sama Eda MT sehamsnya mernnsn Perayu-perayu Kc: Tanaman Fokok Kelapa/Temakan Iran Air Tawar (Tanah tersebul) sebagaw parnpasan alau pun max; (:1) sama ada MT te\ah mampemmnangkan pevkava-perknra yang le\ah dnperunlukkan da\am Jadum Panama [PnvkIr.I- parkara (Jadual Fartama)] alau pun (idak: dan (e) hmahkah MT melucuthakkan napoan Ruwkan Tanah dan memsflmahkan Perayu-perayu membayar Fw Pengapiri KEPu1usAN MR H. Bo!-hknh Rnflnn lnl dlbunk umndng umllh gamgszn nnan Dlnrnml urubul yang dlpuluskln olnh MT? 16. max (erdapa| lerjemahan samh(amImn!at1ve)APT dalam Eahasa Melayu (am) Oieh yang dem an‘ pengnnmmnn mi akan mennuk kepada APT da\am Bahasa Inggens (BI). 17. Seksyen-seksyen 40:: dan 49(1) APT memperunlukkan sepem benkut maxam an '5 «ID nocimn arena cannon comp-nsnuon /0 In a can mm» m Court as In km Amount (.1! compensaflon or as to ma amount of any ol nu mm. In: lmaunk of eumninscfinn bu bu Iwudnd mu no In: amount dacidud upon Dy ma nnn mnasm (2) What: me Assess:-us nm uciv mma n . diclslun mucn dlflors mm urn omor llven the Jud . ha»/IIW mm: to mo oprmon or am mum, man man to concur with ma docislon or om of ma asstssors and Inn amount of comnensulon In bu awamod mm. In: amount mum upon uymaeasmw (3) Any mmon nude under this section Is um: um mm am” no no nmmr mum to . nrwm Cour! an my matter :4: Appul rmm ducilian n m compunsllion. a; Any parson Inm-sud, mummy um um Adm -mum um my p-nan or comonllan on most mnarr the pmmamgs wcru lrminmd mly .pp..: Imm . master: at an Court to ma Cour! alfiube-I mu (:1 live Fndull C0117? mvrm mu mm the decision campnm In mm of cnmpenrlllun mm ml/tuna -lpplll mu-nom. (penskanan dnambah). 13, Mahkamsh im menenma Bantahan Awa\ dan mendapaln Rayuan Am udak berasas Nasanalasan kamw ada\ah sepefli berikul 11) dalam kes semonyln Juya Sdn and Mn P-mum: Tunuh Dnrah Hulu Langnl [mm 3 ML! 561‘ d\ [95], [95], [I15], [144] hingga [151] den [:55], Zainun Ali HMP telah menyampaikan penghakwman Mahkamah Fersekuluan (MP) yang benkul - ‘I951 Nawever In am Wow, 5 um (um Acaulsman m 19611 (mu) m . wma. rnch. rm tmplluuons oilhu MI-vvuw on lflD(1Iand 12; (um) rs am the asscssor: In mm mm am the Iucllnlal pow-r ar Mt calm Insnrmlcl under in mm mm mm; cnmnunnn (Fe) m mm: :2 N \IU\kkYsKkeDzxa\MONew mm Sum IHIWDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm on . mmunre Imnunl elcompenullnn In and rebut":- mum. m. /..m:.: pawn to "ma componutlon nu bun wnmm - -y Imm an my): Court [udyl m en. usesson‘ In much on»: 124 (F0). [95] 1,. .5... .: m. /arigaing, by vlnm ol an mm (re). the new to . .m conw-nulian in :...d ..:.....c. Drocoedfncs is I Illdtclal Pdwur mu I: vested in the Mini: Coafl [IMHO smlllfl In in: land rvknncv court This .....m..... .-1 ma any m. pm!/islonx a:...».. am) and: 2 M41. in lmnases an In: rm: ..m.r..m.m. 11.. am to rule! to we Nlyh Com! Illdfle who Is selsed with Iudlclll P°WlI to l¢luI1)clII E151 Farnllthu mms my-. m mm MD [MA] to bu ultra virus Inc [F6] -mt mm u should a. sum down H441 A mm: rudinv of ma PI-avllo no s :9 [LAN vmuld mean mu mere :5 . camnrem W an -" Iwmls to the court oupne.-I from me Nlqn com on - Woman of can-um-uun [145] Dn ma.» aim: rnpandunl, m. mm» fodcrtl caunsnl submmodlhal the rangm. am. ploviso m gm» i am Is chi! and wvwulvncal in ma: mm. the mgr. Court’: dccvsrun :. yroundud on cnmponiaflon, no aprflar c... b. hmuvhtn mmm M.-s.-.,... rn. courls musty/VI died In the clurptovlslans olme rm ms] The above cnnttmlon um: supvorl In m docixlons cl m. Fldur-I own. In Calamas Erin and v p...x.m..> Tum): am... pm... [21111] MLJU 1529, /2421115 cu 125, mmm: com, um: all: damn u N uum.xk.umma~gw mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm 1.. Me mm... -pm: I .19 not m nnyihlrw amnryuous 1.. .3 ADD Ind am of :1». Act. 1.. vi». or m , I .... .7: 1:... Vin: um tin Ann-Ilun I: Bmcluded no... nppnllrwlvllnsl the older of ..-ompensauon tuned by In. Iumvludve [147] A ;:...n.. pronauncamtnt mu ......1. 1.. 1». can nlsycd Plusuln wnm HI: Lnm-Ismp Raus SharI1PCA nld wm. an Vntmducflun 0! s mo and um lmlndmlnk 1.. mu ,...m... at . mm m. Inunllnn ...- hm-ment Is my um, le., Au preclude my puny Iron: appuuny-n:..s: In: one. ..1 cum»-ns-uonmauc by I». H/vh Court (Eflwhasusudded) ma] w. an 01 um view ma. thlr pdrvormt casts! of um um mppo-I 1.. mm: olcomponntlon mu. .. 1.. ......my ...4 .mu.-My .....s........ a... his m nvun .. .... tlngible W-an. olthe warding gr... «am [Are] what! the safeguard: m that an awumvan .....s. p. -1.. accwdnnce wm law‘ and that m. campfllhlvon mm bu kldcquatu cDmPIn.udun'. rm llluvisa .. ...a.. 49(1) [LAA] ....... ... many inmrpmked 1.. (wow cl me person mm .... been deprived ol 1.: pmperw so .5 2a gm memllw 4.. me cnnsmuflonalplvlectiun all »m....~. Hunt 2.. ms PWMFIY luv] 2. .. axmmam: .2... a mg». of anneal /. statutory wm. than /. ms mo. of mm nm, 2. sum. means ma. when nonfensd ny mu...‘ me now orapasar Demmes a vested ngm. Com?S00m1/nq/V me junsdtclvoll or me cum! to hear iwwar: :5 am aonramx by stumta (sen Aura Dunn: 5.1.. Blvd . Wong 3.. Fall 4. 0r:I19575]2 Mm 549, Wan Sugar mm W... Embona . Hm... hm mo 5 0!: (200614 MLJ 473;. .. N ..u....r..<.................. Nut»! 5.... ....... WW .. ..... .. mm .. W...-. mm; dun-mm VII .;...m pm... Irsal A roman, mo mu» or me appear rteP9IIr1s wr ms terms er me smut: mremng Hm rrgm Ir k a matter or! carrsllmrllon to be grwn :9 me prwrum mr-rlemng me rrgm to swear Leg»:/am mtemrorr can also be fuurrd by sxsrrrmlnfl In: lcgrslznmn as 5 whola Lrmrmg ma rrgllt to Drrrrg an appeal Ix . way ol arrcouragrng fl'rra(r'!y rr an ammmafian of m. /anguags and po/rcy or the Act marmnv ma nght of apnea! corrdudsr ma! Par/rlmurrl rmms ro rm an appear ms mm mus! yrva mm m n 1151] We nnve Pemsed um um um the mrsruns n! this court In Dlllmu‘ and syea wuss-rn. me cases do nol r-pm-nu. an to apuur warns: any d-amen oltlre Nlyn com on oampcnnllan. Em IIC.IInmu -nd sud Nussnln remesent . bar an uwul Against my doclslon which eonrprlur camp-nsauorr, the Fvdenl Court rn mm mu mu win not In!/Had ta ennudlr mm cl conslitrmnnlllty m In: nsmcllvn dlmanslan nlxub-1 «yr; In the an ol m 1: (rs), mm n was ntvur nlsod um-. Instud MI rum in mm two a u m-my rwolvnd around mu zarrsmtnion ul sub-I wars; and sub»: am (144! H551 Yo sum un tn: Novlro tomb-I m1rILA4r does rrovnpluerrl 1 comvlerv bar on I" Ipvurx to the Com! oi Appull from nu. ma cum all urr Qlllstlorrx nl cumpnnntlan. Insmd m. on m 1990:! r.. rub: am .1 m. Act Is llmllod to Issues of an an pmand alizunnnlm al cammmron. Tnuifon an ayflfirvzd FIW Mr AM mm to .,.,».r mm: III: a-crsron ol m. Nfvh Oaurl on quullans all-w" rpenekanan dllamhah) 15 N rIDrkkYsKkeDzrarmuNew rm! sum In-vrhnr wrrr he used m mm u. nrwrruflly mm; dun-vrnrrl VII mum wrur (2? Berpanduksn nas somonynh Jayz, Jwka Rayuan um wax memmhmkan isu undsng-undang mengenax Jumlah Pampasan PT (Tanah Diambfl lersehut), Rayuan lni seharvsnya dwtclak menurul nmwsc kepada s 49(1)APT: dan Rayuan lm max mambangknkan persoalan undang-undang kersns - (a; Memorandum Rayuan Feraywperayu dalam kes um udak memenhalkan persaalan undangundang umuk mputuskan o\eh MR. Hams dipenngalkan bahawa kaedah 13(2) Kasdah-Kaedan Mahkamah Rayuan 1994 (KMR) Ialah mempemnlukkan bahawa ssorang perayu lidak buleh (anpa kebenaran MR mengemukakan apa»apa a\asan bamaman (emadap kepulusan MT‘ Kaedah 15(2) KMR berbunyi sepem benkut - ‘Pumru mm bale]: rnnpn [MR] munqomuknk-rt .p. p. . 3... :....:.n.,. yang lllrv, mp: my mum memuluskm rlyunn flu ua.u.». m-mm. nrnahs kwada allsan yanv Iimyitakan olnn perm.‘ (penekanan dllambah); Gan (b) man benuhs darn man hsan peguam Ierpehjar Periw- perayu Iidak memmbulkan isu undang-undang untuk mpmusxan oreh MR. 1 20. 9. sepem yang duelaskan da\am perenggan 18 di alas, penefimaan Esmahan Awa\ dangan sen ' nya mewalzrkan Rayuan In: d||n\ak dangan kos Paudengmn Rnyunn lnl um mull Walaupun Mahkamah W le\ah menerima aamamn Awaw yang dwbangkilkan nleh PUU, ukan mempemmbangkan juga Rayuan Vni a|as mam sepem yang dmuraikan m bawah. Pulurn-uvkxu pug hams dlambil klra dalgm gang 3,; gnmgasan Lsnah yang dlambll namun damikian. kamv 21. Seksyen 12(1) APT memperunlukkan sepem benkul (da\am an: 2 “x 12 snqurry by the Land Adminlslnrur. /1; On the am nppointld undo! alsubucllnn 10(1) mu Land Attmlnlsrnlor sh-I! mm nm ervauiry mm um um. of:/I tcnodulodlandr and man a: soon .5 nmsihle marumr -5.111": m. lmauntal campvtrallon wmn In M: opinion a lpprapnilz in such as -Iccmdlnq lo Ibo consideration 5:! nut in the First Schedule Pmvidcd can mu Land Administrator may mam a mmu. oplnlan on m In - ol nu tchcdului had: from a valwr Prior In mnklny In mm under secllan 44 ' (penekanan dilambah) 2 MengikuIs12(1)APT- N \ID\kkYsKkeDzxa\MONew mm Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm (1) PT nandaklan (shall) membual slasatan penuh [lull enquiry) mengenal nna. eanan yang diambm (2) PT henfliidan menlsksvkan (assass) (umxan pampaaan (unmk fanah yang mammx) m mana PT belpendapat bsnawa jurmah tersabut ada\aI1 sasuax (appropriate) mengnkul pertimbangam pemmbangan (nonsrdsramzn) yang terlera dalam Jadual Panama: an (3) FT holeh mampanlam’ psndapat berluhs berksnaan dengan mlal oanah yang Iflambfl oxen seorang pannax (anah (upon-an Panilaian). 23. Paaa hsmal Mahksmah Km - (1) umuk slasaran yang dumankan aleh PT - (a) ungkapan -anau as sum as passmla Ihsvsalter assasa ma amounrol compensanan whrch rn ms opmran rs appropnars in each caxe,acoorz1r'Ivg to ma oansrdsmlfon set out In ma Firs! scnsdu/e' dalam s 12(1) APT mamnari PT kuasa may mcara untuk - (i) mengammu kira rnena—mana salu alau Vebih daripada Perkara-Dsrkam (Jsdual Pedama); flan (xi) menflaw (waign) baxapa rmevan dan/alau aammg mana-mana salu a|au lebih danpada Ferkara—perkara (Jadual Panama) yang «em duamnn kua o\eh PT. Dalam am Kala yang Vain, PT mempunwx kuasa bud) hlcala unluk member) penekanan (wmgm) yang Ieblh Imggi kepada seselengah PeIkara—perkara (Jadual Pemma) berbandlng dengan Perkaranperkara (Jadual Panama) Yam yang teran mamml kins cleh PT; (1.) pr adalah dilarang untuk mengambll kua fskta dan/alau perkara yang bercanggah dengan Psrkara—perkara (Janina! Panama). 1:) pmmso kepada s 1211) APT membenarkan PT unluk mengam kira Lapcvan Penmnan lelapi um max bermakna bahawa PT boleh memban kssan kepada Vs) kandungan Laporan Penflawan yang bercanggah dengan Per)<ara»per)<ara (Jadual Panama), dan m) anda) Kala lerdapal perkam yang udak mperunxuxxan oleh Perkaraqzarkava uadun) Panama) flan (idak bemanggah dengan Psrkara-perkara (Jadusl Panama) [Purkara (11dnk Dlpuumuklun Dalam Jamal Pnnama)] — 0) FT mempunyal kuasa bud) Imam untuk menganun) klra Perkala (Tldak Dlperunlukkan Dalam Jsdua\ Psrl.ama):din (iv) M13) danlalau psnekanan yang diberikan aleh PT Kepada Perkara |TIdak Drperunmkkan nalam Jadual Penama) ndek bo\eh meleblhl nHa\ can/aoau penekanan yang mbenkan aleh PT kepaaa Perkaw perkara (Jadual Panama). Im adalah kerana Parkma- perkara (Janna) Panama) telah mperumukkan secara khusus awe). Paniman; (2) nmluk Rmukan Tanah (MT) - (ap seiamr dengan s.-mnym Jaya. kepulusan Ruiukan Tanah (MT) hanya boleh dwbuat oxen Hakim/Pesumhjaya Kehmnan (mm sahaja dan bukan aleh para psngapu, (b) H/PK sehamsnya memakafl pendekalan yang dvamhul meh MT dalam kes Suhaiml bin Hanan lwn Pultadblr Tanall Da-rah Pataling [mm] 5 MAR 591, dv mm den mm hingga men. sepeni berikul qdelem an - ‘[71 Based an my underslandlny or LAA mu in: "mm cl 5. man»: no rartmng lppvolcll In mm. nus Relaunch 5.5.4 an m. Applfclnlk clnims nnaralnv. amonn otnvm the market value 91 m. smmma ma -mt i/Iilmws lfiocflon (7) u an place auum his m awn unlquu futur-s ma - mmculnr pm or the rum ll-‘vulnd by th- stm Aullmflfr my mo Points 115 own dlsllnctlvn chlrlnknrllflcs. Accovdlngly, plvvlnus cm. on MI lmaunu ar rm: camplnl-Illnn cannnt conslllufv blmflny Iona: prmmu Imm III: were’ pom: ul In. sum mm: mmn-. (2; m. 2 Asszsxan mu givu .1... cmmmuan la me head: or mm camnensulon mma by In Apmlcnru — semenym Jay: azmzmir um (a; mu ./udvu nu . duty In considvr rm opinions or the 2 Asnssan . Snmlnylh ./nyu, .1/m(c)1. ru- Judqa ls nu! bound by 0». opinions or m. 2 Asmsors. rm Iommma smanos my arm — 10 N uum.xk.uz‘.ma~gw mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. mm.“-y mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm (3; pampasan PT unwk kerosakan ldamage) ems: pecan-pxsah (severance) Tanah hersebul ialah RMI72‘521.6D [Pampnun wmn-Huh um]; din my pampasan PT unmk Kerosakan (mjunous aflecfian) kepada baki Tanah tersebm yang mak mzmbu (Baki Tnnlh Iersabul) ah RM39,2354D lPaIIInuIn Pun]: am am Tlnuh I-ruhu! (PT)] (Award Pl). Pembahag n iurmah pampasan mengmn Award FT ialah sepe nenm, antars wam: |1JFerayu Panama mawardkan pampasan sebanyak RM975‘BD7,(l0: den (2) Perayu Kenna pma mawamkan Dampasan sebsnyak RM355‘269.00. Award PT adalah benandaskan alasamaxasan yang benkur my Tanah telsebul memvakan Lanah perlaruan dengan syaral nyafa un|uk tanamsn pakok gelah [syum Nynu (mun lcrubu()], (2) Tanah Iersehul cenecak damn. lamsan Dedalaman dengan akses jalan ‘var kampunm 43) sebahagwan danpada Tanah (ersahut mcanam dengan pukuk kalapa den herpagan dan (51 u the 2 Assusals nan um um Dalnlon (s.mooprmon)— (.1 m. Judy: may lcc-pk m. s. . Oblnlolflor W M: Judi! IHIY "ICC! mu Sumo Opinion um alva rlnsons in: m. Judy-’: doclslun 7 smnm Jay: 5: I22A(a)1, at (0) mm 2 Auuuors V"o umuvnr wmm [2 IJM-r-nx Dpininns} . (u the Judy. may choose an. of Int 2 Drfltrurvtflplnlonnndvlvvldlvruunds Io! dolnu so . s.mnym Jay at 122401)}, or (H) the Jung. may not accept the 2 ammm Dplmuns um iumlsh mum rm depminv from the 2 nmmm 9I7mIonr' (panekanan dflambahj; (c) uenanaasxan Psrkava—perkava (Janina! Penama) can selepas HIPK menghalusi - (w) psndapa| benuhs para pengapxt; (ix) sega\a Laparan Pe Ian; (M) ssmua swam yang awanxan dalam Rujukan Tanah (MT);t1an 11 N \ID\kkYsKkeDzxa\MONew mm Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm UV) hujah namma dan Hsan yang dlkemukakan kepada MT uka H/PK memuluskan ;um\ah pampasan yang seharusrwa d-penmam.n me\ebim award PT. Rujukan Tanan (MT) sewajamyi dmenaman; (:1) hams mpemankan banawa jlka PT - (ii 1"! (Hi) Ildak mengambu Panama)? ma Ferxanwmara (Jadual rnengambu kva vakxa aan/axau bercanggah flengan Perlama), danlnnu parka:-a yang Ferkara-psrkara (Jadual membenkzm Mal nan/mu nenekannn kepada Perkara (TIdak nnperunmkkan Da\am Jadual Panama) yang maramnu nllaw flan/atau penekanan yang dmenkan nlah P1’ Kapada Perkara—perkara (Jadual Panama) (Kokhllnhn wn H/PK nanya bo\eh membenarkan Ruwkan Tanah (MT) apabila H/PK memuluskan iumlah nan-pasan yang senarusnya mperintankan dalam kes Iersebu| mmeblhu award FT Da\am en. kala Vain. Kakmlafan PT dengan sendvinya max mswqarkan H/PK unmx membenarkan Rujukan Tanah (MYL dan (ej anaax Kata H/PK berpendapal bahswa Mal canan yang mambu dan Jumlah pampasan adalah Vsbwh rendah daripada mlau dan .-man pampasan yang diawardkan oleh FY. H/PK. m Iidak seharusnya mengurangkan jumlah pampasan PT:dan (.0 sewajamya menolak Rujukan Tana|1(MT):dan (3) nada lahap rayuan :11 MR - (a) pka rayuan lersebumdak memmbulkan persua\an undang undang, menuru| pmvlsu kepada 5 49(1) Am (sepem yang ma rkan da\am Sumanylh Jaye), MR hams menmak rayuan Iersebul dengan kos: den (b) seandalnya rayuan (evsehul menlmhulkan persnman undang-undang - my jika MR berpuas hali hahawa H/PK Iwdak mebkukan spa-spa kekhilalan undang-undang mengenax psrsosrsn undang-undang lsrsebul, rayuan lersabul sehamsnya dllalak dengan Kos, dan an andaw kau HIPK telah melakukan kskmlahn undang- undang berkenaan dengan persoamn undang-undang tersebul |KokhllafIn Undnng-«ndnng um - )(a) jika rayuan levsebul dwbual oVeh uranq yang berkeuemingan werszzn Interested) menglkul cam dalam s 211) AFT. MR hanya bo\eh memhenarkan rayuan lersehul apabila MR berpendapal jum\ah pampasan yang seharusnya diberikan unca Kexmlaian Undang-undang MT max dwlakukan) me\ebIhi jumlsh pampasan yang dwpenntahkan cleh MT [Jumlah Pampann (MT)]‘dan Jwka rayuan tersebm dfladkan o\eh PT, myuan Ierssbux nanya ba\eh dwbenarkan spams jumlah pampasan yang sehamsnya dipennfahkan dalam kes lersehut (ilka Ilada Kekhnafan Undangundang MT) lebm vendah danpada Jumlah Pampasan (MT) Jvka Kskhflalan undangmmang Mr tidak mempunyai apa-apa kasan ke atas Jurmah Pampasan (MT), rayuan telsebui nendakxan dnclak mengmu s 72 Am Mahkamah Kshaklman 1954 (AMK) Twada lenemahan samh AMK dalam EM. Seksysn 72 AMK hemunyi sepeni berikul tdalam ax) - “s 72 nnmmm: lnws Nojwgmemnr amuonn. High court, oraf :nY mm, man :2. nversod nl sunmnualry varrnd on apuar, rm! a new ma! autumn by m. Caun a/Appull, on uwunl nl lny unur, as/ea, or mayu/unly, mm.’ in the mm“. or amlrwltn not -Iluclllvy tire mums or Mllurlrdlcllnrv arm: Cour! ' (penekanan mxamuah) uPT4La«7 24. Bum-buur manganax Tanah lersebul ia!ah sepem nenxut, anoara lam 11) Syaral Nyala (Tanah Isrssbm) - vanaman pnkok getah: dun 12) luas 5.3198 hektar. 25 Mengm perenggan mxu) Jadual Panama dnbaca bersamasama dengan 5 am APT, unluk Kuwan laksvan jumlah pampasan Tanah Duamhn lersebul, nna. pasaran Tanah Isvsebul pada wikh wane lersebm. yakm we 1 2015 rr-mm Pcnilalnn Tanah lnrnbul (1a.1.2u1e)1, hsndaklah unemukan. 26 Kalm berselum bahawa MT udak melakukan apa—apa kesuapan fakla dangarl memuluskan bahawa ada\ah “luiak sesuar‘ WINK membandmgkan 4 Lot Perbandingan Pemlai Ferayu-perayu dengan Tanah tersebul. AIasan~a\asan berikut menyokong kepulussn ‘m. (1) pemezaan-perbezaan anlara Tanah lersshut dengan Ltd 432 V 1a) tarikh Warla Karajaan Nsgeri Kelaman unmk Dengambflan sebahagmn danpada Lu! 462 Ialah 215.2015. lm bermakna (arikh nilal Dasaran Lot 452 unluk Iaksivan pampasan wa\ah 21.5.2015 flauh mum awal danpada Tarikh Fanllalan Tanah lersebul (1 a,1.2o1s)1, :5 IN \ID\kkYsKkeDzxa\m0New -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm an sawz Lot 462 (0 3061 hektav) ada\ah jauh Vebih kecil berbanding dengan ksluasan Tanah lersebut (53195 hekLar):dan (:2) Lot 462 mempunyan syaral nyala kegunaan oanan (dusunj yang Iebm bermarflaal aan segx komevs\a\ berbandmg dengan Syaral Nyava (Tanah (ersabut) (tanaman pokok yeah): (2) La: 1522 bemsza dengan Tanah tersehul seperlr nenkm - (a) Lot 1522105057 hsklar) adalah janm Vehih kecfl daripada Tana): tsrsebul (5 3195 heklar): dan (la) syarat nyala kegunaan lanah Lal 1522 (dusunj adalsh lebnh bermlsw darn segx komers\a\ berbandlng dengan Syaral Nyaca (Tanah nersezmu (xanaman pukok gelam; (3) Lot 1212 |idak hams andingkan dengan Tanah levsehul kersna Lot 1212 mempunym keluasan 0.7151 hekcar den kessluruhan La: 1212 lelah dwambwl untuk Pengammlan Tanah xersehutnan 14; saiz keen Lm 765 (0 54:72 hekvarl adalah sebab kenipa Lot 755 Hdak hams dflerima unmk lumen perbandingan dengan Tana?! (ersebut 27. Scene ang duewaskan dalam perenggan 23 di alas. oleh kemna 4 Lot Ferbandmgan Perms! Psrayu-pevayu Iwdak hams mgunaxan aarsm penenluan nilai pasamn Tanah «ersebm pads Tankh Pemlaian Tanah Iersebul (134.2015), MT max lerkhllai secara lakta dsngan ndak mempenlmbangkan Award-award Terdahulu PT (4 Lot) L. Adakah MT tnrkhilgf manglnai Pamfiggn Egngh-Pisnh [P11 dun Pampnsan Pan o asan Enkl Tannh lorsobut PT 7 2e. Feranggsn-psrenggan 2(c) can (a) memperunlukkan sspem benkut (dalam 5|). "Mmur: to n. wnsldnrvd In dlttnnlrtlng wmpmmon 2 In a nmnmg 2». amount DI compeflsulan In be awardld Io! any -Icnndnllod una acvulnd under ILM1 men mu a. mum. infn considerlfion an Iollnwina mutton‘ no no amen )2; Mt «man may, sustalnld or Him/y an M surmrmi ny m. Dinar: ;m....:.u .: 1». nm. of m. Land Administrator’: um. posstsalan ohm Iznd by mm a! smmw such Ianllmm M: om-Hand: (.1; 1». dlmlyi, 2: lny, ....:.:...a or Iiknly m u. sustllrvld by 1». person Interested n m. rim: :2! 0!: Land Admlnlsunmfs mung Dossesslon mm mm by nuon n! the lcbzulrlllon rn/-mm/y umurw his mm rmvem/. whztllu mmm. or immwnhk. in Iny akin! rnlnnlr,“ (penskanan dilambah). 29. Pemakaxan Perenggan-perenggan 2(c) den (:1) Ielah duelaskan oxen MT dalam kes Goh Tlung Guan lwn Pnnladblr mun num- Kunlu Lungnt [2019] 3 AM 25‘ d\ H31‘ sepem benkul (dmam BI) "my I: Is clur Mun Sub-Paravrahha zzc; um an um cumplnxntlan mly 5. .w..u.u :9 . ~p-mm lnlamslud" Iummrn 5 211; Luuouny damlst mm. — HA) I: sunlmod: or (15; Is Ilklly la b. susnlnod (2) w a "PCrsonIntuum1" dun to 15} ‘cannot.’ and/or rs» mm: nos:-sslon mm smuum mm by thu LA, A [lrilurloas -mm) " (penekanan anambam. 30. Dalam kss W. MT lelah mernhusl kepumsan bahawa lnsda tambahan kepada Pampasan Pecah—Pxsah (PT) :13“ Pampasan Peruejasan Baki Tanah lersehut (PT) seharusnya mpenmahkan ds\am Rujukan Tanah (MT). mi adalah karana mengxkm Hakim yang nuaxsana, Bahagian A (Baku Tanah Kersebul) (seluas 2.575 hektav) dan Bahaglan E (Eek: Tanah Ierssbm) (seluas 0.1730 heklar) mssm bole}! dwgunakan cleh Peraywpevayu Fade hemal MR, kepulusan MT ini wan lzpzt kerana Perayu-pemyu tidak mangamukakan spa-spa kelerangan Gan axasan yang memadan urlluk memuaskan hat! MT unluk menamhah Pampasan Fatah- Fisah (PT) darl Fampasan Panjejasan Eaki Tanall lzlsebul (PT) M. kh 1' rkhllal mun n1 as Tannmm Pukak Kelagamrnnkun Ikan Air 'lawar (Iunah ms-but)? av. Menurm psrenggan 112)(a| Jadual Panama [Pu-nggan 1(2)(a)] idalam 5|) — “1/2) In mmtng 4». mlrknkvalur Is) mo llfoct or -my apron or rmubsd common of nm rutricfinq um um m wmcn mu smldllfodlanfl may be but ill!" Bl tlkvrl Int: leI:oum.' (penekansn dllambahj 32 Peranggan 1(2)(a) |e\ah dwmjuk dalam penghakxman MP yang dwsampawksn o\eh Wan Sulexman HP dawn kes Collnctor of um: Rov-nut Kunnlnn lwn Noov Cllnhaya Blnlc Abdul Majld [1979] 1 MLJ 150, an m hmgga 192, sepem benkul: "rm r..m.u tn Judy! ma rgnond Mo ulnnwypnrrelplu‘ lays down m m. First Scnlduh [MA] in! duttnnfnatlon of camponscllon, An Ixpnu cammron Imming an un own land (it: umy Rnnrvntlan mm; mm rm! boon man we account is M umam luv: done undvrn-IIUIIM 112) Merool" (penekanan dwambah). Nas di alas telah dmefima pakai o\eh MT daram kes Thu Kn: solangor Rubhur Co Ltd Iwn Punudblr Tanah Kuala selangur [2022] MLJU 742, ch [25(4)] 33 Eerdasarkan Perenggan 1|2|(a) dan dua hes yang dmuraikan da\am perervggan 32 di at-15. MT tidak lerkhflaf dengan menolak K05 Tenaman Pokok Kempa/Temakan Ikan Av Tawar (Tanah lersebul) sehagax pampasan umuk Tsnah Diambll (ersebul. Fakla bahawa Peraywpsrayu luiak menenma apa-apa nous danpada PBN mangana. perlanggaran Syaral Nyala wanan (ersebut), dalam uendapac kami‘ adalah lidak vawevan Andai kale MT memberi Ferayu-perayu Kos Timarnan Pokak Kelapa/Tamakan lkan Av Tawar (Tanah lersebul) sebagsw pampasan uruuk Tanah Dtambll lersebuh aksn manndakkan (negates) Kesan dan lujuan Pelenggan 1(2)(a) N. Adnluh MT m r - r - Jndunl Pannmn dlllm monclfll nllal yum" Yunah umbun 34. Dalam pandangan MR, AP (MT) was menunjukkan hahawa Hakim lerpelaiav telah mangambfl kira Perkararperkara (.|adua\ Panama) apabila MT - (1) menenma 3 Lu! Ferbandmgan unmk Ituuan pemandmgan dengan Tanan lelsebul; den (2) membual Felarasan (Tanah Iersebu|—3 Lot Perbandxngan) Selelah mengambfl kwra Perkara-perkara (Jadual Panama), MT lelah mandapan bahawa Max pasaran Tanah tarsehm pada Tankh Penilaian Tanah Iersehut (131.2015) ialah RM1DU U0 Pemarar psrkara smp. Sepem yang aijswaskan dalam perenygan keen 23(2)(e) a. alas, MT dengan Iepamya mengekalkan Award PT mengenai nnal passran Tanah lersebul (RM113.4u smp) flan (A) Pampasan Pecah—Pisah um den Pampasan Psnjqasan Eek! Tanah tevsebul (PT) man dlbenkan Rn uk-n kogadl Mnhklmnh Tlnngl [Mfl Pemyu-perayu Hdak berpuas ham dengan Jumlah Pampasan PT Hanan Diamhil tersebm). Juslaru, ssnap seorang aanpaaa Psrayu— persyu memvamkan dua “aorang N‘ d\ bawah s 32:41) APT dengan PT (2 Baum; N] :11 means - (1) Perayu-perayu mambamah Isrhadap Jurmah Fampasan PT (Tanah Dwamhil Iersebut) atas masan-alasan yang benkut » (a) Jumran Pampasan PT (Tanah Dlamhll (avsebut) adalah randah dan gaga\ mengammr kira mlau pembangunan yang lalah dlusahakan alas Yanah lersebm; 4:2) pampasan unluk pengambuan Ianah yang bsrselmahan dengan Tanah tersebul adalah Veblh hnggu; den (c) lakasl Tanah lerssbul berpotensx unluk pembangunan: dan (2; Peraympevayu mengkenenuam PT menuuk banfahsn m ates (Eanlahiu Porlyu-plrnyn) kepada MT. Selepas PT lemma 2 Borang N, FT la\ah marujuk Eanlahan Perayu- perayu kepada MT manurul 5 37(5) APT [Rujuk-n Tlnah (MT)]. Ruzukan Tanah (MT) Ielah didsngsr :11 hadapan Raslan bin Abu Bakar H dengan dua pengapu (2 Pongzpin m mana . menulak Rmukan Tanan (MT) Akmr sskah, ksrm naak berpuas hau bahawa peguam mmsxajay Ferayu—perayu berjaya msnumukkan MT Ielah lerkhilzfldengan Iwdak msngam ma Perkava—perkava Uadual Panama) 0. Parlucuthlkan Dcgoslt Ru uknn ‘ranah dun blynran Fl Pangngll 35 Seksyervseksyen 39, 405(5), (5) dan 5115) APT herhunyi sepefli berikut (dalam Bl); “s39 n-pom. (1; E-Inn mung reference to we court m. Lnnd Admlnlstnrursnall Maury: each Plrson mung nnnllntton mum: ca awomwm: mu Lind Admin/flnuar a sum annm maunnd rmwlt or ronp-cm :2! m. lmollnl on/mm in mpm arm. Int-rial under reievencn wmcnuvor 1: ma ma 1: murky for an costs anermnu and Appeal :2; In ms mm of the demsn mqmled wldur sunmnon m nulbnrvg made mlh/n my days av ns bemg rammed by the Lanmammrmm mo appmmm for rarsmm shall be dsemsd mam been withdrawn and the Land Admmrshaturks amid snarl mmupon bwomu mm s we Lutsaor: /5) Every iisnsor mu Ncllvo a In for nlr sowlco :5 in: Judy: sh:/I mud pmvidod am such 1.. mu nul urcvnd Ilw hunand Ilnuqit . dly, a. men highs: figure mu llinixlu in win. an -pomv-r ailhe hr. min! Land Council, by noemuuan in ma emu: Dlesmbe (51 Thu in sun asuxmr mu 5. dumod to nu mm in ma pmcuamg u N \ID\kkYsKkeDzxa\m0New mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm ; 51 Cult. (1) In my proceedings urlllnq from .n ob/ocfkm to me amwnrol In award, casts emu bu ham: In momm mm m. Iallawlny provisions (5) whun me zmaunl cl tho Court award «us not exam the sum mama ny ma um Adminiltrxlor In: costs Ihlllbipaidbylhclppflclnf. . (penekanan dvlambahj as Kami msmpunyal pandangan yang berikul berksnaan dsngan deposu mjukan tanah dan fl pengapwlz (1) menuru| s 405(5) APT, 5 pengapn hendakiah disilatkan (deemed) sebagai kas myukan tanah‘ (2) apablla ]um\ah pampasan yang duemukin aleh MT dalam rujukan tanah mak melemm award PT » ta) MT bukan sahaji hendaldah menalak mmkan tanah lelapx MT hendaklah jugs memennlahkan kcs rujukan (snah (K0: Rujukzn Tnnah) dilanggung oleh pemohon :1. bawah s 51(1)(a) APT [Perintah urr (Kn: Rnjuknn Tanah Diumggunu oloh Pumonouu, 1») MT mempunyal kuase budi hicara unouk menelapkan jumlah Kas Rnqukan Tanah, den (cl Perinlah MT (K05 Ruzukan Tanah Ditanggung o\eh Femohon) boleh dlpenum dsngan perincah MT bahawa » 37. 35. (i) ix pengapn mbayar oleh pemunon: dan (xi) deposit rujukan tanah dmenkan kepada PT dan udak dwkembafikan kepada pemahon. [Purlnlnh MT (Fl Fnnnaplt-Doposll T-mm]. Rujukan Melalul Penman MT qr. Pengapxl-Depusxt Rujukan Tanah). H pengapil den deposil mjukan (anah mempakan dua kurnponen Kas Ruwkan Tanah, dan co) APT hdak memben kuasa kepada MT unluk melucmhakkan depasu mfukan lanah. Da\am kes ini, Rujukan Tanah (MT) (shah dkwak Oleh Ru, Fenmsh MT (F! Pengapll-Deposfl Rujukan Tanam buleh dmuaz. Sepsni yang auewaskan dalam perenggan kecfl 323(3) (11 atas. MT |e\ah larkhilal dengan memcmhakkan Deposxl Rujukan Tanah [kukhllalan Undang-undarlg MT (DIpo:ll)] Namun dermklan, Kekhflaian Undang-undang MT (neposm max msmpunyai apaapa kasan damn Rayuan wm. Sepem yang dihuravkan dx alas, Rayuan mi ddak bermeru. Juslsru‘ s 72 AMK Cerpakaw kspada Kekmlalan Undang—undang MT |DepDSM P. Kasimgulln 39 Benanaaskan segala a\asan dv alas- (1) Rayuan mi adalah dllmak kerana Mahkamah Am menenma Bamahan Awsl yang mnangknkan oveh PUU Karaupun Banlihan Awal dwlulak‘ Rayuan Inl masm dwlakak atas mam 12) Keputusan MT dlkekilkan, din (3; Periyu-parayu mpenncahkan memhayar kepadi Respunden kos Riyuan Im sebanyak RM5,nou oo DATE: 15 DISEMBER 2023 words KIAN KHEONG Ham. Mahkamah Rayuan‘ Mamysva Psguam Psrayu-pslayu sum Mahdhlrul Hasyrmibm Mohammad (Tamar! Azrul Hasyrrm 1. Co ; Peguam Responder! Dam’ /dham bm H; Abdul Ghent (Psnasmar unasngmaang Negeri Ks/anran) 5 Enmk Adam bm Manamed@ Mama! (Pena/any Penasmat unaang-unasng) (Psfabat Psnasihst Undang-Undang Nsgen Kslanfa/V) 10 (1; MT la\ah meno\ak Rumksn Tanah (Mn; (2) MT mengekalkan Award 91, (a) deposit Ruiukan Tanah (MT) (Dcpmlt Rujuknn Tznah) diluculhakkan (Forlucumnkln Dcpoall Ru]ukan Tanah); dan (4) Peraywperayu membayar 0'1 2 Pengapit (Fl Pnngapit) (Klmllusun Mn Perayu-perayu celah merayu kepads Mahkamah Rayuan (um) lemadap Keputusan MT (RAyuIn Inl) Menuml a\asan psnghakiman MT [AP (MT)], Kepulusan Mr adeflah berdasarkan alasan-alasan berikul, anlara mm - (1) mengenai kemasan Tanah Ievssbut, MT (elah msngikul rekud yang tilsmlpan oleh PT (yang msruadi mwkan oleh onsng awamj‘ (2; unluk Iujuan menenlukan Jumlah Pampasan PT (Tanah nramml lersebulj, MT le\ah memakaw kaedah perhandingan (comparison mslhud) unluk menenmkan nilaw pasaran Tanah tersebul Mengenai nilai pasavan unmk Tanah Iersebm - tn) 9 rm perbandmgan man dikemukakan oran penllsl Ferayu- pemyu (Pnnflal Pnraywpnrayuj manaka\a 4 perban gan dikelengahkan oven perlflal daripada Janaoan Penilaian dan Perkhudmalan Hana (mum JPPH); Vol (1)) MT bersenendapal dangan 2 Pengawt bahawa 3 lot yang ber1kul(3 Lot Pubandingan) sesum un|uk dlbandingkan dengan Tanah Iersebul - (1) mt 13536 (ducadangkan nlsh Per11!a1 Perayu-perayu)‘ dan (11) Lol 2033 flan Lot 2301 lelah dikemukakan oleh Psmlal JPPH1 (:13 Lot Perbandingan (elah d1pi|1h kemna 3 Lvl Perbandmgan hampu dengan Tanah lersebuh (:1) MT Iniak menerlma 4 Vol verbandmgan yang dlcadangkan aleh Penxls1 Ferayu-perayu (Lot 462, Lot 1522, La! 1212 dan Lot 765) (4 Ln! Farbandingan Penilai Perayu. perayu) a1 maria PT lelah Ierlebm dahmu memben pampasan umuk pengambflan uanan dalam 4 Val perbandmgan lersebul [Award-nward Tudahulu PT (4 L110]. Mer1g1ku( MT, 4 Lal Pemamimgan Perms: Perayur perayu 'fiL1ak sssuaf Lmtuk dihandmgkan dengan Tanah tevsebul Ierulamarwa kerana ‘Danyak pe/amen‘ perm dibual umuk men::apain1Iarpasaran Tanah lersebul; (ej MT |e1ah mensnma pendspal berluhs 2 Fengapit hahawa se1epas membual panarasan (adjustments) anlara Tanah Iarssbut dengan 3 Lvl Perbandingan [Palm nu (mun Innobul-3 Lot Pnrbnndlng.In)], nila1 pasaran Tanah Ierssbul \a\ah RMWO Snip. Buhr-butir Pelarasan (Tanah 13? (4) (5) terssbuba Lot Parhsndingan) man mnyavakan dalam Lampnan A yang dflampwrkan bersama-sama dengan AP (MT): dan (0 wmaupun Ham MT yang buaksana Ielah memhual kspulusan bahawa N131 pasamn Tanah Iersebu| Ialah F(M100.a0 smp letapi MT Ielah mengekalkan Award FT (berdasarkan mlal pasaran Tanah lersebul ssbsnyak mm 40 smp) Ini adalah ksrsna MT memben manlaal (beneln) kepada Pemyu-perayu, aklbst Psngamhllan Tanah carsanuc, Eaki Tanah Iersebut Iemelan kepada dua haha n, yakni . (5) salu bahagian ssluas 2.575 hektar [sahaglan A (Baki unnh cmnnum, dan (b) bahagnan Keane mempunyai keluasan mm heklar [Bahngian B(Bl ' anan ms-nun]; MT bersehuu dengan 2 Pengapil bahawa Bahaguan A (Eaki Tanah lersebm) dan aanagran E (Baku Tanah Iersebm) masih bmeh mgunaxan nleh Parawperayu (Nah nu, mukan Tanah mm mengenaw Pampasan Fecah-Plsah (PT) dan Pampasan Penjejasan Baki Tam lersebut (PT) dilo\ak; dan Fe(ayu-perayu lelah memuhan unmk kas pembangunan Tanah Iersehul kerana - (a) poknk xerapa man dnanam alas Tanah larsehut; flan (b) Ierdapal kolam |ernakan wkan av vawar alas Tanah Lersebul [Kos ranaman Poknk Kalnpanunakan lkan Alr Ylwur (Yanall cmnbuu] MT man dapal Isrima K05 Tanaman Pokok Keuaparremakan Ikan Av Tawar Hanan mrsabulj kerana kegraian m1 melanggar Syatal Nyala (Tanah lsrsebul) (unluk tanaman getah), D. 2155;; guy; dingmgkan nggondgg Q3 gm Raxuun lnl 11. Damn Ruiukan Tanah (MT) dun Rayuan Wm. Perayu-perayu le\ah menamakan './abalan Kama Penga/ah Tana». den Galiarl, Negzn‘ Katanmr (Jalulln xprs Kelanlan) sehagai respondsn Sapalulnyag Perayuaperayu menamakan PT sebagai responden damn: kedua-dua Rujukan Tanan (MT) dan Rayuan lm, Wm adalah kerana hal Derkara Rujukan Tanah (MT) dan Rayuan In! Va\ah award pampaaan lanah yang telah dwbual olan PT dan bukan sa|u kspumsan yang dvberl olsh Jabalan KFTG Kelantan 12. Dalam Rayuan um, Penasihal Undang-undang Negsn Kmaman ovum |arpeIaJar max membamah (erhadap kesllapan Perayua perayu da\am menamakan Jabalan KFTG Kalantan sehagal respcunden dawn Rayuan mu (xasnapan Pa yu-purayu). Perkara mi ;uga ak anunnulkan olen PUU xarpewqar di kala pendengaran Rwukan Tanan (MT| 0\eh ilu. MR lidak akan mengamhnl kwa Kssllapan Ferayu-perayu dalam membuat kepulusan da\am Rayuan vni. E. aggmgn mg xgmgggg Bgxygn Inl (annuvun Awan 13. PUU lerpelsjar |e\ah membangknkan Eamahan Awaw sepem benkul 11) 5 400(3) APT memperunlukkan bahawa kspulusan MT mengenaw Aumlah pampasan unluk pengamhnlan tanah |a\ah muktamad dan uaak hoxeh din-ayukan kepada mahkamah yang lehlh (Ingg\ berkenaan dengan Jumlah pampasan «ersebut, dan (2) msnwut pmvisn kepada 5 49(1) APT‘ iika kepulusan MT merupakan satu award pampasan, naaa rayuan beleh mnm (erhadsp kepulusan MT. F. Nu nh Pcrayu-garxyu 14. Peguam «erpevqar Peraywperayu telah mengemukaksn hu]ah— hujah bsnkuf unluk menyokrmg Rayuan rm: (1) MT |s\ah larkhflaf dengan max mempemmbangkan Award- award Terdahulu PT (4 Lot): (2) Ham MT yang bimksana seharusnya memumskan bahawa Bakw Tanah tersebul Iidak bmeh digunakan Veg: clan Faraw- perayu flan udak mempunyan aksss sepemmana sebelum Pengambflan Tanah terssbut Juslzru‘ Pampassn Pecah-Prsah my hams aioamnan mengikut perenggan 2(5) [Pmnggm 2(a)] dalam mum Penama kspada AFVT Undual Pnnama), (3) MT sswqamya msmhsn Peraywperayu Kos Tanaman Pckok Ke\apa/Tsmakan lkan Air Tawar (Tanah |srsebu|) sebaga\ pampasan, knususnya apabfla uaua apa-apa nous daripada PEN kepada Perayu-perayu berkenaan dengan pananggaran Syarat Nyala (Tanah lersebul): den (4) MT telah Ierkhilaf dsngan melucmhakkan Deposit Ruwkan Tenah dan mamarimah agar Peraywperayu membayar F» Pengapn. lm adalah kerana apabila Rnuukan Tanah (MT) musk, MT bolah mernerinm-ken neposm Rumksn Tanan mguna unluk membayar Fi Pengapu. 5. Plrsualan-gnrsoalan gng aknn dlgutuskan dalam Rayuan lni 15. Rayuan lm menimbulkan wsn-isu yang benkut: up mangarlax Eanlahan Awal, adakah Rayuan lnl manimbulkan persuawan unaangmmangv Seandamya Rayuan Ini Iidak membangknkan persaalan unaangmdang, Rayuan lni lvdak kumpeten mengikul pmwsn kepada 5 49m APT‘ dun (2) pka Bamahan Awax dnoIak- (3) adakalw MT xerkmaf dengan «max manganmu klra Award Terdahum PT 14 Lum,.1an 1:) wa.an<ah MT menambah - 1‘) Pampasan Pecah-P\sah (PT) dw hawah Perenggan 2|z;)7;dan (u) Famvasan Psmepsan Baki Tsnah lersehul (PT) mangnkut perenggan 2(a) kspada Jadual Panama [Puenggan 2(u)]7,

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-A53KJ-64-01/2020

PLAINTIF KANEKESHWARAN A/L RAVINDRAN DEFENDAN 1. ) BADRULROZI BIN MD ISA 2. ) AZRUL BIN SA'ADIN

Kes perbicaraan penuh – rayuan terhadap liabiliti dan kuantum - kemalangan berlaku di simpang lampu isyarat di mana kedua-dua pihak menegaskan lampu berwarna hijau -Defendan tidak hadir memberi keterangan tanpa memberi alasan – sama ada seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan boleh digunapakai - keterangan keadaan jalan, kerosakan kenderaan, siasatan pegawai penyiasat dan juga keterangan Plaintif yang mana tidak disangkal oleh Defendan – sama ada pihak Plaintif telah membuktikan atas imbangan kebarangkalian bahawa kecuaian disumbang secara 100% oleh pihak Defendan – sama ada mahkamah boleh membahagi purata liabiliti dalam keadaan kes – isu pengaruh alcohol dan tidak memakai ta;I keledar - Defendan gagal membuktikan Plaintif berada di bawah pengaruh alcohol ketika kejadian yang mana dapat mempengaruhi kemampuan Plaintif untuk mengawal kenderaan - sama ada fakta Plaintif tidak pakai tali keledar jika benar boleh dianggap sebagai satu kecuaian Plaintif yang menyumbang kepada berlakunya kemalangan ini – keputusan kuantum - Closed comminuted fracture of mishaft of right femur – Loss of consciousness - Right eye blind secondary to retinal detachment

19/12/2023

Puan Yong Leou Shin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0820798b-9a72-4fec-8d04-de9211c77527&Inline=true

19/12/2023 15:54:49 BA-A53KJ-64-01/2020 Kand. 27 S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N i3kgCHKa7ENBN6SEcd1Jw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BA—1A53KJ—6l—01/2020 Kand. 27 xs/12/mu 15 Eva; mum MAMKAMAN szsvzu av sum um m usezru siuusnk nARuL swim, muvsu §yAIum sum >4 aussmugjmzn ANTARA Kmsxsswwuuu AIL suvmnsuu mm amauuzozu am no In AznuL am sum» ...nEFENnAu—I)EFE>4DAn gusm I-EMGNAKIIIAN A um: saunas Kss sscuu uuumus < Kas m. msHha\k:n nu. kemahngan jahmaya yang beflaku m Dlrivmpangln lampu uyurat dun Mam Msgah merww ke Puua Helqhls 2 Manund wamuv. pad: e Lzufl mkm mg! um um. Ha\qM;, new seam membam mnmrkir am am mmw us Eandnr Pun «gm hm bcvman mus flan bawuh up an: mmgm vauah may, mm-tuba sehuah Kama Ne mm mm dc-win secam umm kahnr :1:/I mmpang dam zmh klrun lilu masuk as [Elan P1a\nIW,d\sshabkan mm mm mam bsrnda berddxamn srNx:u«qcHK:7ENaNnsE:A1.m um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ mum puns! aengan mam P\amM nvaku Pwatmmmnruampnx un|uk mm psdangwmn mm. 3 Mmmkm yam mama. a Vimpu Marat swan huau mlvukah Dafiumln vuh muvyfitakan mm muubdak ke knnan Imam pad: xauka llu lampu ‘Viral Mal am am u mmemskan panalinzn xmna pm mum nu : Euwkuun xemmgan mubul. wumm man mtnqalzml klc-dmun dun Plahml Kemuman muiahn wm Simnn darn Pamyitnnn Yuruularmyi buvaflkh 29 um new-n manhunt luntman gummy! am am ulnflmgl kha: mm» Dlluman 5 Km am .1; mrlknn a. nuns wmwcanarl pom eamm pad: 25112922 din baramr pad: zesms Suuurulng pubuxvun. mm PVEVHIH iehh meminugfl an Maw my ha ‘ embuklikln Ines pm-mum. u; SP1 — wqpmwemsnux Pamauulmlvanyilp Knnagmtnann uuspz — PI:mm0<ma<sshwlInnaIlRav\r\drIn) Manikala. nmak Dalandln um memnmu manamam saw an Defarvdan mm mm new unmk pqmca-an a Ania: dnkumevrdokumen yang nmm mm. swam henkuL . “mm mm; A u Vkam Dokumnn Emuma n m Vkalannakumanndhndnn -: 7 Pads 7 u 2:‘ swan men-um hunhnn nihlk-pimk‘ Mahkamzm mamumsknn bahawa uanum mm. mass mm-p Dlhmnmbmmln flan wan membm Knoulusankuanlum Iapum mm Jadunlm hnwih a max be/nun hum dmgzrv kepulmln Ix-hum din kunnlum Ierxehm. pm mmm lz1ah memmm nmwsmyuan pm 21 112: um mvmbuat raytun m srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. am ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m van; .. .nW.my mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! 31. MsmnnI\IsaI1nPawwn\ Duty-Iranian Illah mu-gamnu klimangankaxlu mmmn, Pagiwm wanymanmau meuyllzkinxenem mm anus: awmv hula: tsu. miuk mulalurul 10 um; knlamnglnj s42 Den kelorinvzm Dcflrrduv ml Dlmumu mamknr Puma! rm .1. nmm1PBds7 J has mm 5 15‘ man :21: but mean kumalanyan. 54: NM rm mm 4 v. hart Vurw unit. 544 ox, mx mspmor m. no: men» slaw unmk m. A-mum? maksudrvyl mu». m. harm: samba! as Vamau /mm. Iamau /-yam H»: mm an bocwanu mun Icn7 J v v. 545 Komudmn mu temps! salwl Nlau HI: belok. macam Ru? J v y. Ma/1 Dlaldl lllmvllmot-IIvko7 J mm /mnanlsmpudla man warnahtlluthuuvmy-*l«abc)ok m kanan Mm m on ma Kata ma ammo ms. nu llmpu warn: mm m J mm. mm akzw, man /impu masth mam. ma tax bemurm Iegl. 4:. wml Mow. Ivan mnuau ms mam sw Maksvdnyu -an Davlukunsn wanna ramau Is/am: 15717 4 v. :2 Mnhumah mamunauun um u-ma unluk manning knlmangan ylnu dxubm um pagmm panymsil mm: aemmmn pmmp unflangutdang Yam dneunakun dalnm up. .14 mm :1 sm ‘3>wcHKa7ENaNnsEmuw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 33 vm Menu Zawam Saflah txemuman HMP) dallm ken Puwc Fmncuwv V Koo mun Em-m[1IlD8| unuu m maruwk mm. sllu kes mmm Persekuluan darn menjehsknn am buirut ‘The rmpamm al wvvmv mo unwflllllltr or M: mm: M an sum»: was mgnr-amen M 1/15 Fodsm Cam cuss avslm ‘new Bu v r.p wmm Iviulvwe was mad: mcnamcn-I sm V Emptror /v946)Pc1 m the wantsoflord swam -wmm; mm m have Menu!-se to am» sec!/an an meamund Mal . wrlrross rs /msnabtu ova!‘/"*9 Bvmnu, nu: rm musl a. pmm1,zm1 pmv-dxmary u rs an mammary mm at an aocvsedlwlson ur . Imvm m . mu um mu: - wurrcss who .: la Au-my agnmsl mm xnould M m. .m...=. hliwn m gm-Luau mm mm nu m. opponumzy uvu-My m. wltn-u ...a.u..m.., m. .:.n.....m..m 2... thus mm: . in mm winlan u n: his ml/nnlllxy than ,5 mssrb/9 [mm m.Mu.|.u|m.m.r nr aommon n )5 nsceslury mat nmvlsaon should be mm m exception-I cuu mm IHI Imp-zulbln mm mm.» 2» sum»-m. mm «mm: wvlybyn muwy Plwmzn mat km: an as muma 5»: the cum must he cuelul la nee mu m. cundmnnl an mm m. mm: “mm. prnmw: lvmsncn W... by mm mm»: to n. rend m mcuymm m a arm can a my um um umusu, vain Mlpmnl, cu: m . cnmmnlcaso ma pmo/augflt m as am mums wvmsss rs mvapabls orgvwny -w.1.m - 34 M.nm.n membua| kevulusau m pzmggan :2 min: max Duiaudan Yanglurvu Imx muuenum mum syam sew“ yam: amemmuum am am... m Aklz mung... msn yang .“.N.xa.m pk: ..m.g.. Iovarany an..." vim: mm man menyebivun mm.“ mm ...mmn mm uknranya W. mundapmkau mm." mm." VN malnun msmbzu sabamnv sszab kenlva Dembunlnyi max mu new av mankamah Maflxzmah m.m.p... pm mm am. .. m. a... awn! mmvlhkzm daman Mas dahm Vkahn dcknmm besem: 5 WW ammm mw. kzlemngan my.“ Duh: yilvg mum mm. mm 12 sw mcumzuanaszmm. «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm tznnkmk kupadl pamwuan kaumhen kanflunganrvya a. min: hanya bulm lemm mamgw nan pI1mua|rIyldHxa0endnk1 7!: ram pemsflknun him as Mnhkamah mmgh um kasntumn umuk manaaman kshenarun kmerangan am kemrmI1dakd\har1 pamang um-amngrna m.aaam1omm»gma oomoumurnrm cm mus form a Var better oommn as to ma rshabmty man 1; paaaama Ymm ruhdmg a Illbimum or flaposflmn‘ Kelnmrwln aapam yang mnyalxkan uh?! pqrwm raanyi-ant ax was msmiedahun maawaru man-1 panukavan wama Yumpu uafik am. can murah x. n In an seaming ,a|an aauemm Defandnn msmbsmk Mk: ma: Vnmpu berwumu man paaa mk- ilm sswajamya uevanaam whammy: bum-vm dnhuhl pk: mm hmuu ayam m madnhhbawama mam. map. auaufldnkbamum wmammuuva mazman xamm dwgru kewinun naanmaam. hwmn ma din ma vlmymiin aamy. yang mmyubkau nam- -paa. maa mu apawa. sly: samplf av Pun: Hugnr nyn sndullg bsmavuk lam: umsu llmpu uynml nu... Pads maaa rm ashueh kalala no armor sou ktluu msrnuaang don ma gg-net lulu muuk mar... aaya an Eaammlnapurn marangan m xus Mix flkinkan men uevaaaan memlmiangknn Ddenflan max new ubnnal mu bagl km W Bag! Mahkaman‘ -an yzrug mm nlimh samn am pm wnma pad: mm Vsyirat tahhharmkav auuhllum Dstendinmsmbemk Dnnuplkvu‘ Dnlnmxn aagax manyangm kalnirvgnn be/sumpah mama: av mamcmah yang menynlakan warn: hmpu Vsyavildw Muannya mnsm mm :7 Berdasaman um oavmaan aavam Vurmunvwla ba«au zaaanmm manmem n knnau nan kmnnhnynn berllku semase bum mevmem Danny: kuvuukln ynnn d|\aprm<zn dalam kudua-du: mama", kt-uslknn me. P1am|IY Ienumpu dv mdapnn kaem manama kueeaknn kavula uuunaan m um» km m menyukcng salu «mam m mlna kldudukan kereta Deflendn/I lehhpun memhemkdan Imam saaam mdinlang a. Iahlan aan P!:mM um. Mahkamih msmbua|1nIunymkuvM: Dulnndnn mlnnpun mamnam keklnzn cam my amyaman mama flahmlavuvan an ml mmuuludkannm mm." as mum 1; am »3kqcHK:7ENaNnsEm1.Aw «am. am n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 a mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! ssh mflapanknma mm man» msvvyaoabkzn kumz Flammlldukiamwl n..x..p-m yxng mnyitaknn men P1ain|NscM\n din (ems me4.m.rmexan km mm uovanuan Pmura mu Juan among ow Dltundann ‘x‘ mm mm Dnrimwanan aamm man kaanv P1 an Slhm vim mag. n ma. nmman unluk memlnfifl Detendan bun! manyangkal vertl new bmanann um: Ida Vumpu (mflk um: «aux. Im an. n In bemmkna muhknmuh hams Karma versw PM/IIW sahaqul mm berm Karin: mmany awapan Dafvhdvv mm: kflldun Munvun muncsmbah ks laluan Mainm damn msmbehk ke man as»: m-vmamn kanmangan m. mm Mahkamxh mrnquk kapidl mu. m snmu. Am. am up Enl 5 Arm hum : nu so: why muwaum. an 714/: afpwwdm‘ men mzwu moss mp: to ho rouama, II not . mu yum-my out we a/.u...owa:m_ro«, om>s_ dthndumln mu Plncndlnvt um. ma: 2» OINIMHWIC1 mm m rm evidence my 121 lbs ynmtrfimull 1,. xumod I9 5 m In M»: mm :1 m sum-ism lomlertn mu Iouowm mm: In m-/wgmm olfiphmslana cu Wasaknll smgn yam.” Smgh(19.?1]1 M: 1255:» :23 vmpmym mm 1». Damon oipfvni/I959’\'War.~)lI-sav/Hence: mm, M .5 mm 1:‘ mmmm In mm mm oa:e,1Iven me;-me /5 mm to ca)! upon me omsrpifly. and has /vopuwur In hold mu m. mmrry rm. Man to pmvl nu case nlallfl/Ducausv mamas dues rmlbs/lave M: svk-lanes Al rm: my ma ovum or Ialsvvy of ma tvrdanzu rs rmmnlennl For me Dumas: cl !:.mn£7 wndlvsrmsusrsa case ta mm, 5/Him mam wan mmospvmma m be wa Iimphsmlt Adaodl :9 Damn um lhdavlrl Krmm... ml: V Anmr mum: 1. Sum IIy|[1M1] 5 ms 24‘ mamman memmuskan 1m mmmmgm Iiehvtdvbdclondrn llflalmunbnnknlunngan 3.»... m lnl, kuiomngun mg uixumukglgan gr. flgllmf mum homr. m mm kn w, Mahksmm Ayuny mm mm mm 5 Ana! V Tm up Eng 5 Arm! u sm mcumzuanaszmm. mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [1w711MLRA we now] 3 ML1 m MW] 4 cu so9,I1w7l 4 me am. an/am perwhafirnan m m mvnyarahn mam mm: s-rum mu. Ddondnn an-m pm/ulnv mu _flu fl, mlkn mm. mu-ny-n ylny ummm... am p:.:nm .~ l::|l.EEN§A&U.H.ALKQfl9.|. on Dnlendan benandsntzn Kouada Layman Fuunahn mamm aunuaua »<mpn.x Pmmlv: n-mu. zsnma m muki swat : among a yang menyalnlun bnhem a) W»: under mun: mlluumq man bamujnh bahlwa Flmnfllmavnandu m bawah pangs/uh umm u Mam:-man meudlpiu Vluumn Dsmbelan muebm I/ask manyalakafl Dlrnl kanmmunn mknhm dawn darah Flamm darn guga Iwdak munydakzn nmad: um am. Min d\\7ua|unluk mmmxom kanaungan mum dalnm bldsn mamuvma wakw kemahngin :2 Mahkamah mmm kmnungmw P\amlN mm ISA] an. an menfllpnll mam». Nevnahanian dla sedarw mum unluk muIghanhvpeku1akl\IrIg mm mg. mr. mmnm nmw. beuiu mamandu m huwnh vmwamh mm am waklu kemahna-an 43 cam kss Ban Km: Kunk Mn um: Euhm w. Anunnu (ilallymn) arm (2-2221 mun m Minknmih lam?! memulusksn aeoeni wim. 'Eudusavi<nn kspnus ,1apa:.»4-nu-n mm mm mahkamoh nyitann at ms, monk-malt mu-am. «.4. mu Ammm nun m.nuvum.n blhlvn Plnlntllman mnmandu .1: Damn Mnwmh llluahol. ma. dqflnls: mtoksflrlsl au=~mnmx.,. dnlam Dunn mmrurv: Flamtfl Du/am kenduan W‘ den 15 sw mcumzuanaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm lam bahawn F/pin!!! man tsnlbal dalam um komnlanqln ktrldvun. dvfllusr mtcksrhsx pnm mm mm semen 156 Am Ppngangkman Jalan 1997 norm Dfillouan bu/an dlambc! am Klaus: 52.9 Polul rnsur-ns yum um. Durlvannnrv rm: ying dinlzpnn mum Joanna: am: dlafmpullun soblnlbunda ammn pm-mu lrkonol ml g 1: 1 n n n n ummm«ammuxmsmnuxm,mp,m' 1; {as Lgfln mm.» My mum mm 2 an “gm mm r 112 . a.o...:a.m.mm x. m. nmomunln . mg», an AA: mmawzm. am an my kmwkluavlbahsfi mmnmu Ian} mumarmu ar bawah mmm mm mm mm- 44 Damn kes Empldlnn -k Gun! .1. Am v nmu ax Jnruh mm MLIII mu Mamanmh finggw mun mmynnknn upem um“: -mm. mom was no avmencs adducodla show that me nlcalvol colmnrn m the Dafomiamk um -mp: Iorme mmm 0! I»: wonam In N: 112. sflamnnnl has-ed an the avrdarme a!PW3 smvsny. Ma 1-4 Plammmamd m be pluumsd to HIV: nddon ms movavym wmu mp Ammawn nl manual may based an FM: mam. max men was 3 alatament gm by 4». 2-’ Ptawnnnsl mmmna (Inc 1- Pl-Imaflhud cunsumqd mums will [26] um »..m.»»,, mu! .... rm mama: m .0... mt mm m am4.mwm«-mum mu_mzm:@ damn mu’: m...-..;.... .: =u.......»>.g Alcohol. flu new ...a common nun wouhi dlchk tn-1 rm cnnsummlnn .:.:.=.....,y us sw mcumzuanaszmm. «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm pu u flou mm.....mny me-um». . Hinon in en: ..a...: mu: m r. umbh In ride M: mnhomydi um/blrflolmny m 3... v-w v. Day-n: mmm lIrvllAbnngEnInuun1CIvllABHulMA 1:4 2ooM;1.Ewm Mrs D/oorlamahol kw! om. Datmdanrand 1v mmmvwm um um! mama, u an n-vurhe cunnluslvz wouwh in man nu ma: 9Itive‘wIntnxiv.1fion bocaunll :: . rm mr 1mm 1."; 1: um. that that ms no evidence to mow that mg n n . rm: . rm: Hm: , m. :..m..1 sew: Ilndlnss am the o4....1.m was negugene. war». may Ihnmnourv/dl urrdar m. tnflunncu au:..,n.u.. unluppunud bnmmc. my me can he mm ma mm V“: 1: mm M: leamtd mantel rm. wmm avyulfl rm: ....r.x. m. DI11ndInl,lIvu W wm.m..m admmsd ma! ». canwmod atcohal Although mm ms nu ;:.:mn1g-n or m. 1-r mm, m. nflmtumn mgunimg m. mnsnnwlmn u/5/cam)! was gm Dylhe Z"’PIaInlMmIuu9h rm V12-cmsm-ms" as Dmam «mean us mu m sw peeawa. pen;/1asa| Aulah mumbmtzhu minkimnh mm: mm flusu dsngan ana—apa saman hukennn xmmmn mum-ndu an hawtalv Pangamh wow! hand: has lzurdapzl um xllu my." rflkemukzkaxu umuk mm |eIdlpa| swam dalum damn wamm flan apakah Bataan pIr1:a|kalIuma\2m awn mm 45 Adam unfl.Ing4mdaug mamlp sgpam mm. mm "um um Akn Knnranuan wsu hahawa bmn mombukflkan vanhng up:-Ina mu tanarvm levmzk pm. mm yam: mmemmxnn mahkaman msmpemaym mm kemxjuean Iakva nu Maka Ddmdan yang palm m-mmman mm Mihkimnh Flamm bukan snhala mama“ m bnwan pewemh slaw Imp! pans amomw m da\am badarvwa mulabxm nan yzng a.n....m “mm: um mzfllflfisknn kemamvuan bdxau unluk me-wgawm kendevsan can semmya muvyumbanq kn mm bmxxunyl ksmalanoln m. u Dalam um. um m.mm..u Mn my. (mun: by um. um. En’ mu mm mu mum Ind Ilxlfiillan npvmnuuvo) v Rlokunn um um: I Arm mm Muu 2a .1. mm Mnhkamnh Sesyen ram menynlsknn mm mm 17 sw mcumzuanaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm ujian puns slwhul, saluting udak mm mmm mm» mmm mmm mumbfiwi kmnevaunnya lanyn --am. hnhln nuku nmmn ymq btvnlmimun knpann plmhnlnn n....m yum mm m.mmmm mm nnms mm FIa\n\1l:daluMeb\h amped: yaw dmmuanan aw hlwnh undung—undIrvg» ‘In em mm»: Cu: rtmupiflm Pwuthatme P/ammhadcarllumnlalcvmal by mm pwo page 51 «am». 5 our PWG fltuwud m «mummy .._. _.,... . ._ ..... .....4. .. .... ma d-third was mm am that mm mm mg mg M4n- PWSIM wvveveby mmmm ./wiles Damk Lmlon mm m Kucmng High Cam! CM1 Aupeal Na 124&2oaa « between Jnhrmy M s». Vw v Danna Manna sum Ab-rig lulnluln hold at pigcs 2-; -n .5 a pm (nun wmcn reqwas no authority at sdam/We suopovl mg! m. mm : : mg m: - m mi: ma-pad, aw: Dr. mm was Ric from Ssmwnk emu-r Hospnll mama mm. quoslron by me Dvtunflanrs‘ mm..rm:.:puw warm. m.«~m. that he was muum /Hive Ha/nMMonfl N-mum» cmsurmdmmmzl I mm mm cons/flared viewlharme Ffummlm um umm and hlspmverl the on m. Dullnca av‘ pmbnblliba: that men .3 3 mm rm can at nogilgdnm against M: v- Defendant rm mm» shomdrmwsmn In m. Dulandms to am an cxpllnalum In nngafe negligence. In no Know cm» 5 Lou An Moo! I Am: v rm Chow Nana 5 Ort[Vl91] 1 cu m mm mm. ‘oncaptirnlwwweodxmlsvahlumnynpnmu /.m use ofmsglvgoncu against m. mmm; g 1: fneumhom my 2,, mum; g M mm,» In srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! r actldlnuuu n lulnn . a.u.u1.mL" m M mm» case we mm ofme salami ru mu. my r-gugm. on m. plnsnd In many an m‘: Polrw Rayon at page ua ur Bundh 5 m Ian mums that Mr rv p.rma.m nun -amma m III: Pom‘: mm mm he had Amaokad ms Plslnmfs Mammycte lmm me ya.’ Yns Supreml Comm Jnfarshaarla Anni v Yul Up Eng I Armr[1 714 cu m n-I4 I! pay“ 51» and 511. '11! Nuvumn/ass, band an the facts and clrcumnancex of 1». can, mu apps/Isms, may M E; 4%. guitar rm: as:-mama . gnmn (In! use 51 ' m wh no at! n =4 n gmmm gggggfln wan me .:m..c; ofrvajmggncu fi .§ mg w .e;mu..u ma chosen not re. five «mug, an mu. 7.! 1;. m. ummm ya, mums. wlmffl mm,“ mm..r...mnem..s‘ /necebymI¢dIInnlIIre1‘D¢lond:nt!HIh7% mru rm uuslnu the leddonz and m. r1 u.;.,.am bung 1». uwnur nl Ms mmmms oAa254IMddan by Me 1- ommnm vlcannuslwlnole ' as Vxu yaw samlnlwi ldah manafliu div: mpmman dawn m Mahkamah mw Pnvwn-wan V-nmn Mn. ucls lmunnce Bum:-1 (ma: 1 ms on m mm mahkamsh mamumskzn swam mm- ‘;=.n.»< Dalondan Maya oevvanmg mam. L-cum. Krnun (axsnmn nu yum? me-«um. man »=:..mm mm was dsn may d«mBIuAan mm Dclendan 19 sw mcumzuanaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (441 upmn Kmul WI! mlnun/ukhn bnnawu mm mull! mlngamtungr 193 mmwam alkaho/PIr10I7m!/lrllardualflnflu ma/vbw so my-m mono/PM mo mlllhur 4...» my dlbanlrk-n 4. Damn Ma: Pmgmgkutzn 4. ..m1 (451 Hlnyu bmdn-mun xapma kamiungan Luparan mm. W, Dalundurv mun msnc/ak mntman Ptammunlukysflmdwwen lambahan uhan-yak wmsaooa 90 MI Mshhaman mmflabitv mt. Dlhnd-n mu mmmun... mawa mm." mm mama berpuncl 5-ail: Ianywnv mu Ndak Vanvsnmg din kondman yaw dralalm elm srman -hinntaibavmn p-nu-mn mmx. 1471 Dalum on! main my lam, Dnhndln can-r mummmm. nu Imn-mm lrcbarinvhallun amw. Emu» llhahal yung mu. mmwmn I"=nund"I :1 run! m-nmaml koc-durnn dalam mmannan telnbut Han rmmnggll durna shout mm..." mm: own.” mu mlmbuklllvln 1«sIm.mw.n my ads .1. hadflnhn Mahhamulv hanyfi murlmwkkan mm yang menurlwsw motorslkal nomoor Dlrrdaflaran ./SF 1502 Man mvanaav mm" number mamm me am, mmarsnn mgdmm mm mm manlnygnldlm/a Tladiketmnvan unluk mlrmll/ukkarv bagiwulvwklmalarryun Ielsabut sebenamyl mm mu pm. kemalangin too-Iebut. (491 naaa Aslerarlgan amaamn Mshkamuh munmvukknn mm srmatr my marmngglng mmnrsvkamyn In/ah mm akmat mm m Dnwuh pennnmh allnhnl am msrmgar male!/an ms-Dal, mnguam. Kscsdwaan dan kumudrallwl rnemnwbl am. sum: mamas» tomsbul m.m..m.n bevnenduusl banuws mm W... .........gA.g manna I A m 2......n..4.;.. ndnn mafi mm w tzervamunq mm L-our-n mm. A-mam ullfllk mvnalnk mm." mm M91 pnmmimrgarl a..mo.a;. RM5a,ooa.a:7 m sw mcumzuanaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm Mahkamah Tmggi lemadau kawlusan Mahkamah mmgw iamhn din kuanlum hag! km W a‘ xsvmusm UAEILI11 n Mahkamah mvmbuu mmmn mum hnhawa uevanm bananggungavu ‘WU’/u_d:\am umawanw um am Ihxan-nhrun mm in Malah Mus dahm undangundang m dallm kn yam; mumm max yang mmwnn, Mahkamnh mus memuluikln van! man: yang mm probabla dfpammbanqkzn dahm mm." x. Prvmp umnmmaana mu Iglah ammmm dmam ks: Nooruntl an mm: Ahidln l on u. hug Lul My: mom 2 cu lap 545;[1wn]2 mu 2:: ylmi mamumkan mam mm -a ma!/uogc mum, in nansmsnlvv two mum/ng mm.‘ mm which women 1; Irmeremf/pmbablt oumpmnuw 1: mm an Mamaman Frvgg Illnhd llm-H J-miluddln Y Lu! Knk Kl|nw|2E14] 1 ms mu m mnna Ham Am Amfin msnyulakan mam mm - wulaauun pmak Def-ndnn b-ram-we pm koturanpan sw my m-mmm mm Dnflrldnn mu bomsnggunmswab sovenuhuyn temednp llemalangarv lumsbun Mmwv malvknmvv dl pannglul ml um tanks! mm kaputusln mu Amnkruu yam: drhu-at Mai: sm rm. Mnnumah rm emu aknn um: 5-hll niarman um mu mun n: n-nu: Mm: an Inn simply mu mamaln m mmy :9 n. mm muarnm kuovanyanhlas momm/ukhln ndomlluun Join pl . Ivllaklirvyu, m dalsm Are: my kzlmsngan mu. m knlunngan dulmmsmusi nyala mmmak kspada pllvak Plalrmi” 11 mi bevmnknn Mnhkmuh max ham: mmqa-was bu: mesa wdapil an pavunugahan vam mum warn: mm Amfik uhaja. Vnmluv hum: umamm means "an. sw mcumzuawaszmm. «ms smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! (541 wan.» mu mlmnnvlln :..n.m hnmmn-n L-um. xmu. Iunhut m n rent am am balm am-4: dnnnln mm-mum... luhurrgln untuk m.n,.»gau: mm"; ~.m...yxu.;. puny limbul. 155; mm Mahkamuh Suysn ya man u an amsm/a mamuluskan balvawa nm~ uh-VIIWWI-I m-mum pnmva u»4.np-mam dnlam kn: American Home Assuvunce ca. rm:-A. u mm m unmkmmwlk ;gm.g flu tsvvaxsk dfgtlg mu Defend: I55]M:mann1urLvkarIl1ele«dIn yumnern-nmnw hsnadalawran K/ml: mm rnnnahl «mm... pmm, mm no-n mum: pm. um Dullndnn dun Dnl-ndnn 9-9-I molvbaskuv man pembuktruv Inl. 1suaAv<Ag1_;E|,g}m:§;§ gag ggyr; Muggggg 55 5335 49 Detundan sekau lam bargamung kwafla mslory dawn Vzpulan wmm bammah bahawa Kefisiman PUJVHIN memakm rah weds: menuniukkan bdwau wan "Wvyumlnny cuaw mm kamahngan WM Enxanaan m. W mm ldahpun mmmn aakwaan w sexamunnm Mahkamah bmumnu danuan maahan pmak mam Bahama szbnmw Wanwivlfl mu mmaxv-um-n Igmadav Femuuran mm my man raya >.~m..m. om kacualan, pmmv unnanq-Imflarvg VI! lzdahpun dlflyihkln us... lavpevwvn mm ks: cm. Kim Sim: L um um: Hunk !lnAmIn|1IW]6 Mu Ass -m mnudymcnl, 1». Inn 1:... m. r-spannsntdrdmllvlvn . vslrddnwng hclrrc ‘ ....1 ..,.. rm! mama . mew n.:m.:_m the rec: that m motovvyde mm by M was mam. mud ..,. DH rnsulnncu ...a .... rml .~.m...m . Dom clnmzt In 1.. rn-he mm negflaun. Thus was m m._9.._.1w...ma......;..m..n.c..m.mn..y.c.,....q...m...:...,.,u-rr mum my mu. m mp. he huynm mm, mm we mrro-ac. .u......., n .4. mx ;.m...m.;.m. “mm; 1., fwusue mm havmwuald M1 on amen as 10 makv Mm flab): Far acllovubfit rI991‘9Dvr¢e DV WW9 (ha mnmvcycle wows Imus emunauus rmw: WEIE wnbravunud by mm and mm 1, sw x3kacHK:7ENaNnsEm1.m um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm mm momsoandsm mm matbyrvdmfl ma mowrcywa mm Mesa sxtrlmaus mm bomq mlwnvened Dy rm wm/A1 mm m ham :9 mm and lhsruby mmm nu me can" or the u¢;dqnI' in aumm ks: sin Return! um um um I on v mu zamax am sum. I Amw[ZuD1] 5 um I jug: msnurlmkknn pemhuln yang mm: mm «mun m man:MAhkA/nah mumulul nbahawa — ‘Adalslvlafias mm manurryylnq mu mumau mp run .a...:......:. mm :41 ' Sahnhknyfi‘ /. amen mmm@ um_m1u.1m_a_|m_m:n_rm r-nu mlflwmb-W ~-u-a- nann- kumnlunyln kamisrann dun ullarlmaun ran. bahawi psvayv mam. many nwmnygaw malowknl («seam mp. Inun mlmlndu yfillv m. mm: mar kul-dhr man ma bouama pamooncew. mm «per din um mnyuunm punn pu.n.g.nn hunhut Sehemsmyu 41 ans: frnbanqan ksmuwkman‘ n-raw panama um mnyooanxsn alau mvnyumbirra um. purlm kIm57InyIn1lI!lDIIY' 5: Mn. u....m.m mm rmsmns yam dmynlakan ex .1“, new... um um. menuruukkan new aw.“ kegnglhn umuk memakm mi ..-mwm ksbdlrwlvi. Plmnmmahmenyumbanv kanadn bmakunyiknruzhnaan mm mm obugasw hams a.x.n.m um: sgseumnn mm mm menaumrman kaun mam." alubal mam kamiiangan yang bake! »..m x. mas:-v= avzlklcuavan um-x Vim 52 mnxamnnmma-um nalnm mm Pmmtillelahmemfikandlkwumbahawu befllu um mamam an kmedav Pngzwal Flwynaul my um Id: kumaman an In: xaman xan-as Pwnlfl Mnhkamah mu bemsnulvat iakhunya benar F\a1nMl\flakmemal<aw tzh ulnar, vnndallhxalu mum." pg ma. m..m.n uclm tmasiwan am Is udax hams ewaum danyan win Harm dihm ksmawanaarl yang banaku 5: ohm yang aummn, barkuuin 4.»; mm mm: bemfla m mam kesdaan inlomalod flan max memmv nu kd-nan mahkarmh rmuapau Dalarvdan n sw mcumzuanaszmm. «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm gaqm mmmm mm bends di bawah pmgaruh mum kanka knfadhn yung mam dapal mamp-nqlmm kzmimnulm mam unmk m=r1Diwa¥ kandlrsn an ssiuusnya menynmlbang kapada xemaxnngnn 4m Mankamah ma buispendaualdengunnujahln nmmmm. mm Pmnlhnflikpnkax uh k:\odnvs:‘mnrIyI mm“-. Iidakbu\ehd\aAgganssb9g|\ sllu keI.1JI\:n wmnm yang nmmmbang «ma. bmakunyakmuhngln my 54 Sslzagaw mu flanavzn manylhlmh, u.r.m..n beruua: mm mm berdnsnrkan kelmungan kemaan Man, wosaxsn Kendnrian, Mnsahn pugawaw p.m..m.n:»u- kmamrvnan vummyanc mane mm ammm an Deflendm, pm mun: wan mombukflkan abs manger. klbur-ungk-hm bahawa klwawan mlumblnu mm mm. duh pm Dolendan Arum: Dgflanflan bmmdak mahngyarlamvu mm den mlwumboh x. mm." mm: mm... kqadmn‘ mnkn mu.» waiav mum" benangwnuan woo-/. Imtuk kam:\Ingan!n| c. muup u>4nAm-uunmua unsussuu rmsnxm mun nus: 55 Panda/xahn yang hams mnmbfl Nah mahkamah dmam mmpemmuaman mu mm mm mun yang mug" mm kn: Inn mun mm mm (A cnua Suln: Trwuunn Hm mm: um! um Frhn . Mum nuuuu mu: um v. K47-than ummu 5 Dr: mm 2 cu as aw mm Amul uma Embong HMP manyllnkin. w n me that damage: anrw at eompenudm. I-94 . Iuwani, fies: my a pumslvmml {sea 0ngAIv Lung V ms L/nd57wm)dIV98Z]2CL.l19B‘ mm} cu (Rep) am, new 2 ML! :2». m Isunmg damages, the gmgqmgfi m IV an m Irwin srualmn based : 1. "mm. mmmm . . . . mmgmnmm And me maljudgu an in mg. mm zvldsncs mm ' 2; srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! 5e Dilnm mmmm kemwan yang fluawmx ac.» wamnm Mankamah ham! mvflvlmmbflflfik.-n Sfinali Ilpmil‘ mg dvkamukaknn dun mum Dummbirwln mm: Kmafla waver-mu pakar yum: Wm m mm kn: Llm wm S-mu V mm-..r... x Mun-Ann»-n (mm 4 ms 1lIa,Mahk|m|h mw lehh mmymlkan mm bum “mm. mdeanmn mm. mm: pvmbatul ranv armmm uoaw kamlnym m u.mm..n, Mahkamalv sswajamyamonnnbanafixennwi taper-n nsmbslm mam dun .m,.m. MW» mm M g. .n mun: Iuranl mam. mm in ma mesa me Im 51. M-hkamuh ham) mungambfl mxmm bahlwa man mnum... mum: :15: um mum sdzehm: mu lakshnn am: man, harwfi meals malkamah mu» nan mink Fhwml bmayi nunguvmklkzn karainnin mu mm dam meflvilkmw Iunlularmyl. ukslran wnu -um aapa arm at dalam kc: Buarl loan vm mum. c. mwwnq ma man man 1 ms 42; mm} 4 mu M on; Nodx Thy: mu mannluxkan ‘Ear Itspmmcnl Wflflulronl would cum mm mm :11 ... Em|Mm- cam V m. Pm Hats! Ln1I194HI :4 rm 177 :4 m «prams mm unflflsflnd Ihallflhtybvvngnctionsinrflnmauasmslwlhemtapravu n..m.m..,s, lira nut mm in MR: dmm the pmlcu/an Mr! .9 to sum, mmw mom :1 m. ma cm. cum, xlyma, m;.m.4 Hlava um I ..« ywm aw: ma than dumagcs. my have mm. 2: - (See Ibo‘ Tahan sm: cor» Sun and V saux Vslnm M51-ysm Em 1201211 cm 9591' an um um. mavnvummbanakanlumbh amanm gm. mu nmngan Imman mm vnnu dwellpkun dalam compendium md-h I-nlu mnnludl um nqukzn ylnu nmm mimbfl km aleh Marltamlh m dalam x. mm wamy um Wanuhhl 5 Am V‘ AK mumdaln mu Alunxd mm 5 ms :2: mm Mun m us Namhi am‘ Ksaknvnna Hum) men)/alaiun 1: sm mcumzuanaszmm. mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm w .. uaamulic -nu lmvarunvu that man awardmq dimly» luv pdm ma smlnrmg 1.» pnnonnl Irmmas, the cum must endsavaur in mm mm M: sum awsniad raw. wlmn m mm In supw-1.4 rn m. Corrwlndmm Int! :1 wnmld be wmr-grwmnrmwtsm Igr-om r Qnmmnmumauopmckaeu-nmmnomm..v.n4n..x..n.w.m.m pm-cur-m,.uy mm am In)! manuals mm the range m m 0°MDInduIm I would um vanmu m say my n .s m. an afcuunsel M mm me: 1.: gufds my man In mnka m uwsni mm». mm wmn mo may: as plovmod m 1». CnmpcnflIum.0V=uwst.IvIn1Ivun mu. has w o. m.a»c.« zvldelme A1 mam an awardwrlichhinl lownnlt mm». Myhsrarluwoumi urmmng. mm um um, / an amp: mu m. Damplrnifum .5 not . stmnmy code but my - ammo which does not mum. mm H/ham/on mum m. colmls, mum: to axrapbonll vsmm mmmsnma, .1 Mary 1.: d-pan rm the compmmm But, ,2 mm ug, mum mg gggu um [gm [mpmm lvniann m m Otherwise, ma Colvwifldlum mu as mm/and uums m so my Acmlvlny cnllsrslsmy In awards 1.: damage: fnrplvsurlll w4mu:'[Ss1! 5730. Kim m cm V Lao Hus SmgI2fl1F]1LNS mm)- as suam Dlmandukan mmulndmm Minkimnmum rum mmamm mm mm min mam kadar mm din koeusulan mm my mm menunhlxau mun ganumgl D‘ mm ks: mu Yrlmpcn S-in Bhdv.ld|w1nhnlIl|2flI)4]5 nu an YA Lw Hop am; >4‘ (um.¢mn HMR}menyaIakan *1». nomklarufluns or wzlaparmd «mm mm twu mm. mm ma ma.-an In Law Es Ea‘ sum, mow Dailvavuwnplr wary»! In ma lssassmim at quantum nidamuwu m pmma m/W7 mam". Indeed, a r: mm». m was mm on! ovum haw am muvud mm wnlrv mu Hmasmlnu ml: CIIIrvSIudvCIIm, a vwyswltavmzmbsnzil/vefiur. mu mums and watt 7 In-mm book on ‘Pomona! m/um law, Pam. m Pru<ao¢IIIs'pubMrudDyML/m 20:71 up n WIM9 mrsmn vama olmonty m m. .4. ar wmpulolcs so that Ill mm which rg svenmu/7y given mm .5. /vflocfm of m cwanrvsm ormomy 152-Amyuleruu-Immla V AbI1u(NnurAbdul./saber 15 srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! 5. Am! [19:15] 4 cu an, Vnsludgmont aIAbau1 Mm Vmlk J In mm am. sum, /: m we MN: m. mm.” Smgaunvl mum Choarslngh 4 m delivering my Mama»: :21 In: Car»! .1 Annual A/an conaldand chlnunc In um um: at many. mo dvclvlu In In: Dllrcnlung pcvnr a: m. mm mm or en- mm... In an M: mmng over me yum. n relvnm Inclon m m. mmmm of aw-cu A svmuuruwmuch was nauma Dy mm M wm Tm vm V Psmok Mfdok 4 Ano(I1€74I 1 ms m.1m512 MLJ m llm mm vlnw mar Mus: llrm . m..mapnnua»u my. bewmu omromclmi and aimed pmlclphs mum mm mm. In awry at In-ymm r pmg win wwrolmc mm, - (See .«..; mm man Amzar Ahmad Human V Kw: Twwlqvanu Spomhlrsl Howls! Sdn am: s on mm; 3 cu 259, u.m.m.4 Onmnm! mwmaug VuJnv.Mn1NwMd2aln .!.ArmrRl7z0]1LNs nsmsoo Hun Song Koon V Ln saw 5 Ammzvl 1 ms 1351' uuzonm vznumuu mu xscsnsmu Lapmmapamn pembaun Plalnm flan wapmanaapuan pakzv k-duudua phnk um dlpanr.m|uHz1tzkIukkupnm: pangmuahan Liparin-Wawruu vuunnmn yam mkemukakln om Phvml mm. swam hm1kuI— 1 uwrnn Hu!u\mFtflJB1I!ya mam 294 am an m/: :4 “(sun s n upomn Hus;-11:! smug n.nmn 5 12 zmam m/an Mann :2. m mom um: OnhIlu\mu|ng\sl mam benznkh an < mo 01 W1 37-43 Vkalan 3 upon" pamblhn ynrvu dwkemuknknn am pm Deleudan Idahh sap-em um.» ‘ mama P:knr0Dh\Ha\rno\v9\s|Dalmn:n nnnzmma 7 Zflzfldwm/:1-flkmnn c 15 sm mcumzuanaszmm. mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm ea Eerduaman kapada xapaampom. pemhnun a. ma. hankul mun komasman-kenedeman ylng dmavvfl em Plaim untuk mlaklman man Mihkamuh flan hupihnn Flammflzn Dflandan unlukkuanlum ainnruvvnm «J Owned wmrvnnmnd mm: nlmshnnwfnghtlsvnur :11 Lmanimmmousnais 5) mgmavu mm xu:mflnVY!nv=lmn\aaIa1:hmenl E. numum vnnnx-nnux am xspumsm mmmmn am: KUANTUM -> 54 Unlukknmdaman mu P\a|MWmemnhm\ nms.uoo.nn seeagd gum! lug! 65 Pmak uevman msmwk kepada am Illuhd smuv Axlln A sun 5 sun Llgl Iwn. my Law mu nu mm mum oz as man: haw kacednraan -mum 0! (ms Ham nmur mm 1 cm snurtanmg‘, mihkimah man membevuvkan mm iabanylk ma2s.nun.oo buvdnarkan kls lkhuln sm. Rnmll I Anny V. Jnumnlh nu smnm s. Annr[Z|)0I]1 run 5: dl man: mam. ubanyak nuun.nno.an mm mhanknn unluk kacsflarnan ‘alumni fracture cf the right lemw win 1 cm snaflImng' 65 vmx caveman [Hy bnsandaman ks: lflulunud Flvdaul Adam Mn flu rm Lu 5 yxna InIn|1nIc| unuzsu 2 ynng muvyaukan bbvlkux -120] L.nm.n, w.:.u,m.,..umn yang dlnmlm o/sh plhak p/mm fiM55,uoo 00 mm. sllu mm yang drpurkulakan Imggh Kemp! pads mm yang sum: 'cumpand!um' luubut mm /-Yes mnvya lknn mm. /um/uh yang dmndsngkun Isrsubul psrlu am.» manqrkul mm mm ilhnp mm" an den mra.m.y..n ma din/arm (‘Awarua rm the mm miwru mm: m o. adluarad lo accommuflala mu a-w-- U’ ms-mlw 2: sw mcumzuawaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! occaslnnad by Ms nammar Mlury or ny mumpr. m/mu m (ho was Mills 7511')’ m Mlmumlh mamjuk kapidl lipcmn paublhn Hmpflm Pmmjnyi um mendanah kmxdenaan mu Ewan! blah waanm emu dwaanus snbaaax Chsldcummmmldfmcmmnimlsnsflafflflmlumm Ea mm.mn mlnquk Compsmimm of Venom! Injury Award: mm aw mm cumpemmm mmmngm mm on -mam rwwzuaow wwa.soo D39‘ kpmnarlimni an Mimumih mama-n ma ma awammen am Ddauflan yanw mumbefl award Rmmoou a-Jaw: mrvunlkan kn: ywu was was tzmm zouv swam vvlv dvlsviwkan mam mums mum Denlalshan vunfllllfi‘. Mahlamanjusla mm: mwgamlm kw-I km Inlilsv din kemnmxmzn My mg‘ hmblhln Vim mamumlh mendaplh Fmnlfl wan mengahrm kauuoeruan palah km semnwa um... mu nanlk mun: unluk um «mm man mg lzmn, mil Must mamngan bchnu swam mm mw Man - so. klmu mum»: ma ya sstcpas x.m:mw Kumu mm»: camps )ama7 ¢ - mm mm tnnun ma fish! mmanmu, seam: Auk] 1 lsk balelv ll/in. Dun mun, dun muwsn ram, aramm dsk-(mulch um/a Mah. Damn-m emsumpan 4 . zomanuamuzo. Man. mm .1 '2fl21:l.Y!IIIkkIf7u-ilaaukmmalvsnnntu 1! sm ‘3>wcHKa7ENaNnsEmuw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! vn Mahkamah nlliah manvuummbiwknn nnakunoan mun-an yaw flludanwkan um Cmvlpemimm bavplndaplct bahawa nuazoun muumm. ulu annfinlm yang w.,.r flan munuahlh hlgw kamflamln am D) E M cannclnulnnll 71 unmx “less .71 msmmm-. pm Pminfllmancndmgkl nwud nuo,oon.uu. 72 mm wemn meruluk mahkumuh ks xu Avlvun nunuam. lwn. Funluuur-n :2. wauwln mm) uuuu 101 a. man: mamman mamuluskan 141 Llvnwk kn udavun VH1. n-gumw. pmnw mnnumqahkln nwim we sab-nynk ruu,ano.nu den saya harneiuju aancan mum mu my mvuakan munsu Irv dun merlahulnhkin RM§,nno an away nanuruui yang wajar bag: ‘Vnss of consc\uusnexs' 7:. Mahkunuh marwuk nawan Hmnnal mum buvunkn 29 ¢ 2m .4: ml: Lo Hmnn 3 Han mendapan mum «Wm l.evdapa| '10» :11 u:mums.- 74 Mahkamlh ma mamjuk owpena-um vYPenoma1 wmy Awxmslmfi m mums flalam Camnnndvum munudlnqkiu nward manna no 75 Mnmumlh bummiangan mm Rmanocn ad n saw an bsrpalutavu flallrl‘ vamm W 1:} 5 m my ma,.ma.mn nun-I gggnggm 1e Untuk kuufllvaan .m, mm mm: mm-qan bahawa keuaealan wmnwaaaan xem am memudamlkan an: unluk mehkukin wean um». nflcnm mamnrvdu «mm: mavnmdanvgkzn Hm-ml mm snbagaw pamsndu w an mu alwv memudn/zlkan dia wink ow kn Kan: Iumy: mum jug: muuhan my--um hiluwn dis ma» umuk mmdapm ma ama.xu.nyaua ksawzhn m1 Pauuum whlkF\a\n|Albumu;ahsun:y:mzhk2mal1 msugambd um mman 2; sm mcumzuanaszmm. mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm mas: dupin Hamnlyarvn larpnkai mansmskm Hangar: inebulzzn mam mat: flan bevhuilh bchiwa num,nun.au mum bunlmun him mmamn dun kuxcahn Wm 77. Pmnx Delendun manuhui man man rujukun hany: amm sewn“ 3 bmin damndx mm. ksmnlmain Gan manahuluhkan s.m.:m.n. kc: Abdul «mu Monlmud v. Kumlmlumln Hand 2:" I Anal [anon] A mum m an mam Mink:/nah Unggt mangesnhkan gum mg! senunyak RIII7o.oou ylrw ammmm olnn mnhkamah rnndah my mandunanr m vs Mahknmah mu-mjuk um. unumn Hmpdll sdaysng berunkn 512 2m m ml: 7.: lkalan a. ylng manned magnm mum V Chmnh: mllnal dstaclvmont -Right aye um uazndflw to rldmsl uummm 79 M-nkxmnh ma memiuk «em: Lapemrv Pakzr Oumh:vmu4ng|x| wmnm benankh so 1 202:7 m mukasural as mm a m mm Palm DpNlVIsVmu\og\sl PVAMIW. Dr Narendmn Mulhuknxhnanulah menymikin . ‘My cwn/cal comma .5 ml (Ms runny nun has bun mmmd mine :2 naurssullafther my mmaummm as dam!-n -mm He has u @gu=.. mm mm M mm M1, ms nu wan Man In rruka nan m mm his and 10 am now to on nwnm n1puDD(a and ammumimgs ma muar lot: I: gmmfl an Minaknh Paknr 0phIM\mnIng\i| Dnlwdan‘ Dr ram Su Lin \eIah mnmnmamkan ying n-mu damn mpmannya yang benaflkh 9 1 mu m ml: :- ammo srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! 12 mm kc: Im mm mm. Fuwyusm Mm mdalm :2 meogesahun kumnusnn pmvyinnalan kes -wan -aw-. Kepuluiun on ma fldak xosdxah muayakkan man:-man: mm unmk uumnan um». mam mu mnnmm mm ula PH w ker-Ina mamman huxapmuipavt dungln human wink mam mm. In kacuihn Innmillnduk yirw uhzertlkmknn mam harkenaln mm warn lampu >-yanm um: Vuman vmakrpwuk nan mum ylng mm mm psiilurln an mm yang m kawil own lampu wsyanvl (yang bammgil dengun am am lawsuit snncmmmy 1: Max. mu.» Mal pm yang baud: dv mm Wamw isyaml buwlnu mush hdak ukzhpun mm. mervsmsklm neaalnnan dan hams bemsrm kuam: In-nun Vnyaml main man mm ypnnl vflasamtvpvnhlbullarv D1 mm m Mn :n.. V KI»: Tlnn Sulh nm| 2 cu Rip om, Mahlusmah l1n§qHa\ah mbmbsnarkanrlyuin Dmnflan llmlfllvkupmusln >.<amm.n Rendnh yang mgunmgman Ha ’ n Lama rm an nnura wamuvm nevanaan mumma-u rang a-pm-man x-vum n-mun Wm [1] Wm umnvr: ma delandanl, has no bullvwss Uniting en. mad, as puma mu m Wm V Lwldml County Cauvvc:/[1935] nu rad afvnal 1; 3 slow av ammo plohvblbon Am! mu mmamsnmmm ma ~:cu1lrII,m1Iva mm, wuuldheansahne gg.g,,' 12; Th: In-mud mag. mm fmmfla: 3 (am am! me mam: ngms wave In mm mm and mu ms owes/r-9 mm: Mam: mmmmmismammu ' 14 uam kas W nnamm «gun mlmbm kallungnn ax mahkamlh ynna mangeuhbun mm... ks-undmn Vnmpu mu.» hljanz nan balm menamskan peflulunarmya den Am 36:1-h knrlxmuu dzngan lauomn whsnyn Kuzmnuan Plglvm Panywlsnl marvvusahkan Iamnu mwk bsmmus\ namm pan: mm Ilu emualma Nada ksmungkmln Vampu mm mm member: ma: mam memh msupun mm dv mum: . n lain yang bememlangan Dada mas: yang sam: srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! ‘In conclusion‘ ms mun ummm a I/gm mm mtlnal netachmanl ;_;_._rum ln mevugomun um: rellnal must hue been dmcull, rummmg mxwr-awnr n-mm ummmm H. his . good Amt nuunyma m - M aemasmn Kemmngan Plwnn mm pvmyalxin uksmyl m Jnwnvln sushi! 1a. mihkimih memhpall kemllngan panuflhalan seam mala muvung mambvt koeun kapada kdmdupln Fhwml -ama.ua;»«ma-run mg gm alarm’ maslh bemm ml/lh nwnunnya hhllangln mgumnun pm utu mu Man mm-uammn pvylnlun uyu mam mumm nkllvm-aA1vvili mm". 52 Mamumah mnrujuk Compendium av mum; Irwry Awam. ax mm menmdarwkan mm ax anrar-I nun,-nun an-sn,mu.un cam keusdevian WU 53 Mahkamah Wm muwuk kamzu kn: Abdul Kmlr llonlmm yang mxemuman Me)-1 pmax Delnndan flan malmarulv Mahkamah Ymgm dahm manganhk-In gm rum «mam mmooo yang mm Men Mahkamah vnnfllh biwllmnnimm dnlnm keg yang jams mun mlmhunl pamevhafian separu an kul yang manyaukan samamangrvya RM7n,um2 -mam: “Ina low‘ ham kecederian -.5/ma", sesualu Award sohuusnya -mp up mm m. 1/mu’ can Mankamah mun menaakm kepnyihan sesenunu ms mmamn pmuman ~BeIars me my cmrrn Iumsd coma: fur m. pllmlrfl mwuma . sum or Ruawoom for me mmdness lo M: ngm syn m rwauoomz rm me lscsrstmns that mn scan on me wamm lace ‘ma Aaamsd murvsol for me dsfsndanm loo suggoslodm ma maromm . sum aIRM75,noam7 for m. ngh! we bfimdnossnndasum a/RM1£7aa0l)01orlh9lsx>srstuans moan soerslollvs nlamlwa face TM ma! mm awardm . mm m RM7u.aou.na 1.». Moss Mo :1 srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! mmss smiths aussdon ammommponam was wneznm mama ammo em mm that 1». mm cum! rm amend Imnermrs ma Thu courts/vl rm p-s:n.m»ae.e.1. m:VmpaVm awaruundsrlmahsad ms mars of: practice than arvyW'*€ else aw syeu Agv! Enrikbalv ./[2000] Muu 556 mm: II: Mun ms) vrv Abdul mmru V Om Teak Em 4 Am! 1979 rm mm was bald man ms Lorvsmp awarded smug» la a sw flaw um c/lrmlntmusum urnumwoao/«yam undauflmnqand RMJ.DO0,DI7/urlots nr amun/ties /n Ana»: mm» om Abdumnnm V mm wma hm AbduVHlm1l1[1P9E 4 ML./ am PM dsfsndam . a mmonar are nearer. porronnodbwauporztrwtan MflWem1M'xn9’VIa}'0l«-mylhv'wucnmy"m-smad Whmh rlsuftpdmlouafvvsfion toms Wamms ngmeys andlaws/dadasum av Rusazooaoa to ma pmmm which um Va; too law by comilrl ma: rlpnlbd lrnrding mm mm mm: way. u was kl ma low. Judnu too mm numuu ma 1 rmul nu mm. chum! m nw-nil»! In unmnnue auuuum Iorlan om ay- in vm n-mum Aways ass ummapon, (hm was VMHIMM sum mums: ‘on gum dumivu M amrmnlvsa m mam m Mmlness 5»ou)dbs rsmvsd The my would no the case 9: Law You Cnny .: Arm! V cmn Man K4! 5 Anarlv9s2] 3 cm 1550 mm b/mmmss In ms ma: aye allractod a sum of Rusaooo me wound rs Mu use al mu Mng Jae V Lau m A/»g1C:v:!SuM Na mmw mm mm, sum mmsponoa; Mom ronm nhlgnl to In: right -y. Ma mun nwnmv-1 RMYJHIOO In mg» base: me mmmm mu mm: eye mu no nu ma wand mm, so to speak Huv. ma aerw-cam mew mam»... n. Imam! ma ngm‘ .y. nflive pawn. me p/amblfa yen eye was many mm 77:9 /ass olslfiht 10 ma mm are onm Wunbnlunaaradlvrm iolalvy mm mm! [or was rsnmrv a sum anwsa me was awarded to mm on reflemmn, tmougmmu the mute us on tho lam! sum hunrrg m rmm1 ma maul:-r mums.“ :11’ ms nu - rammmy m. prusum plmu.-r sun had a good left an to sun «ms bnunlul world with Acnanlmy m Dr Haul sr.VV mg, the mumum m: an '. u m VIHl1i/ uuw -rm 2; mmar m 3; sm w3wCHK27ENENnSEm1Jw mm. smm Illflhlfwm .. LAIQ4 M mm he nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! as ammlrval/on Ann due aauamuan, 1 tarmrmed m. Iwud ul numma man My lrfnl court awarded the mamm under mu hand afllr (aklrvq mm aaaam that an M.“ mg L1 mg a my. [QL[g1L{(FImuIv J2: Suun v. wa Vasu Pfl/:!I1s73I4 mu an (ms) 1 ML! m up «as. an Avaln. an 1,11,; 92 La: mm :1, :1; L. H; mm 91: law ma Concise Oxford Dfctmnary. am aan, dofinn wnna .. ‘lacking the puworo!s:;IIvI' flrlhgul mm ; H q [11 . figrk world s 1; 5 am as man am my; : r r a m E’ mm ls wm um. um Mlhkamih munamnhkan kes mm mu Mohunud msmpakun um ken ms ulwlunxan paaa tahun men. aua \:b\h xu:-rvw 23 hhun luhh mam Dlmm kn: km ham mu, P\a|n|lf sums: kemnllnvn my: hen-um 26 um- uan sabnium xqaman tuflnk mamaunyax aaoamng nus-:1-h derlgin peqwhhalan (layman um wan: aw mukasuvel as man 3 dvujuk}, ammm knpman kdmlangln pangummnam nan mm mm, lmfli ayanm am! menpmbfl Phlnlfl unmkbskana nag: den ml mlnylbabkan Plaumflamx hdxkh-kaui an luplksn duduk a. mmah aama mam kumvw :4 mm ma Imax manna-ma ax mukanuml 29 Not: xaumgan -Man omamn 2D!5.uInpn!7 4 201esamDE!?020 Man mm 4 24:24 say: at: Aggg mniux may mama MIII L-um: vtu kamu ma hank /M7 J K-dn maum buallnltransum mlmamm Saluh nun:-mum aawx ' Mnhknmih burvarudanflan kehflatnuan vanuflmlnn sulu maua near: Ink)! VI! amwanumuuuunymaamamgxaamaa vemudn PI: Mlidukmlanya ma Ida bah man berkahrwin ahumm um mp! kvmarman vnnghhaun .7.‘ :1 srNx3>wcHK:7ENaNnsEm1.Aw «ma Snr1n\nuuhnrwH\I>e a... a may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max mam «am my. mcmuurwm ksun xemadan mass hadupen ram: km“: W: mm sauah munlpakan um kumlanian ruwu nanghhzlin aha‘: Him [um mnuban kuin mmu rmnannya sat: made a 5 runs um mam mwgumbu Idra kemlangan kpunayaan VI! mlmnlkan xalu knumun mm mm usws mm ksjmumn nHa\ wani mun dan kas New my s-makm muunvm Ilhhkaman umnandnoul xslu swam beriumhh Ruupnu yang mm flilim mxman cmV|Dm\a\um mun munasahah mam kaadaan wm F. nuumsm smnnum AM mm KHAS as Eohxgaualummuun u.wm.anManxamnmmgenammxumam»mam badkur A. GANTIRUGIAH lmu¢Iur<nn'/-) av Cloud commmuhd lrlfluu mnm..n at mu.m...—xna2.uou u) \:n a1cnm(InIunnn . Rmwou q Right Iyn blind ucondlvy w mm: d-uchmem . manna a. amnnus: K1-us [nu kldav mo-r.) Kosdakumnndwmuukkzn a.x.n. knslmdnkan dan a.xmman mmmmxa sannbsdah nan. Kmaryfiflfi man auuzvkan. 97 Fnadnh mm dmmarkan m Faedlh ham vanumiluu pane |Izdav5‘/- salaluun an (em: nlmyuvilnn Slman ummn mm pswhildml an sw mcumzuanaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm m $.34». mm kemgmn mg Dada kndar 25% samum dar1 ufikh kemalnniirv sahlnww um. pm-unaman. my Fzsdan uabanpk 5-». mlamm flan um p.ngv..m=n nmuggi um umymsm vamm Bnumm u m mzmznn one LE mm; mm MAHKAMAH sssvau Shah Nam Sahnunr Feguamzra bag! mhak mam: um-im..ma um Suhrnmlmam mu... s n. w-am cn.m..-. am Mum Sdangur Paguarmzn bag! pmak mama.“ Slhrlnl bm sun ' muan Nllcknr 5 A: null .. Km lumvur is sw mcumzuanaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 15 Ana ynnn amxsuam dangan Bataan pumbukuan Mu Imbinqnn Kahararugkahan mun swam ylnq a.p..1.4ux.n om mx Harmmdnr Smgh av mam kes snumn cmn m. m 1. Anor ». mm an. um. um um MhlrIppu|I{201T| 1 nu an a. muklsuru|337seDl¢lA bsnkul -w. must lmphlsus that pmov nu ma balance of pmhsbtmln umpry mm mm; [fig mum; mmmuxw mun mu m mu occnnnfl Theuuung mmL1 mm »+ was mm In oermmrs buch wwmam mevlmry mm.mnn:wmamgm matnwnsanaasstfi mg mu! m m sa - 15 Dmam me-upammn.nym. keldann ken um, muhlamah um mshrm din mama mawme xuvuu mu mamben ketemnmn um Mahkamah bmvuan ham hahawu Had: nu kehdl-hpevcayaan wmw dmmbmkan dahm km W P1aInM man mvmbm knlavlnunn dengm mm mm memang Vampu v-iflk be/vmma hljau semua bahuu mnnannkan parialnnan w ta/mm ‘um mam msmang nu... dzngln llhn (auebm dun mm ssnwslmyi mm Iamanq kewujuaan Ylmpu Viyum aw yalan wsehnn sun. mm mmnganuyaumm mm: bah: u. mubusum|22 ma Keiemngan 57 v ox‘ Evvuk Kan bus: Ink mm kiwa:an(e¢v1pal|<ama1=I\9arv" 4 am. sa Sblilp nan lam x. mzum m:n:7 J Sam mmaqu : mu says man many can: i\Iu 5: Sim mmuqu a sum muksadnyfi had’! J - mu lay: puny:k=«1nd:ka1s\lu,xnya mum! hlnlaronang Mn: 2 mu m. hwy!‘ dskal mmah shrug! I Iak mu srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! «a. Mahkzmamuui mamliemmhanakln kaadunialnn as mum mmunnmr. luma ax Man: flunk tervapil sltumng hflangan hnudln pnnuman mnuv walk-(ska Mn 19 sua mm kaluilwin Faqlwnl Pmytalal dawn I-oakkudiun man dx lzumpfl k um swam aw nmn J : Va mu dIl\p.Id|x\m w.;.un.m. :25 : an, Inn um um um kaanr Ada ccrv u. xmIDa|k31:d\an’r J . mm. 529 . mm m flan aw Jahn Eavuual u. palan niuakmuan k-mm :9: mm lmpoklnfl 4 . my Hllan may s21 - Dmgan ma mm 4 Deogan mm so 523 Keadnnn mm mm: maczm mm on. lurus x. mu man an: mmbuuk kn membukll kg mmm mmm J ma Imus szo Julan lulu: ya“ 4 v. scw Adanumngin pandanqnndw xmsan umpang \amnuAxyn:lIn\7 J mm sac Kxwnzn Izmnn\km|a\m\ian‘ ads mpuman um J Ma 5:: Jam kmuun cmn lah ya7 J v Knwlsnn cash sm m.cuma4aNaszmm. mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! 2n. cam ken AMI‘! mu am Iflnlumld V Klmlmlnlmnn um um III: I. Avior mm 5 cu um Mahxamah menyslaksn sevam mm, -m Numnnlr m zmu Abklm xv; s 5 on v mg L04 up. 5. Tang Lyn ca-ngmao1 1 cu m, Lml am cm" um mxzamon la aaylhallhv Mil [udgl mama rm! aoomach ms case on ma bum ofduadmg wmcn my nu! ar the cunflldmg mm mu: would be behaved, bun mum : ‘ All ml:-as bdrm --z---:, n I: we flaw mt um. Halon ofonu aldre pamls 1. mnommy pmoam, mun m.,'..4.- nu no mm but 2.: atccpl mahrlrllan furthvrim um. Chung Chow Tye Lung xmwa m(v9n712MLJ 27;- 21 Mahkamah bavpamlpil pads ysrmgkal w varsl Pmmm ndulah mhlvvfly pmbabh mk: Mnhkamah ham: Inuma vam VI! an membuat augm- mum: mm P\imIW mar. haqaya mambukhkan mm 21:: Vmblngan keharangkafiin Dvngan mlnsmm mm" W“ .. halmukna omn avpmul saknmrvu bemhh kspid: Ddandav» untukmuubuktwkan mm 22 Eerpnndukan keoulusan kes Mahkamzm Perxlmluan dnhm L.«:>..m....n Dlnltlu u...p.m. (A: Executor 1° SL Al-In-Ian um (um-uan n Am~.s-»ur- Pllmallen Sun and mm 5 cu Au wx Jemeyvan, rm manggunanakm pflvulp undanwunalng Mam kae Ruvcnhodhhnl V. a-bumuun ma Gu] am munmnaw mm .11 pmM' dalam komuksii 1m darn m2 Ana Kelanngln man: me man: aaavan lama dzrvgin 5: nu and no: mma Ka1I7:ng,ln1§§fl -1: Is also win)! 11: agar in mud um [ham .5 an eawumr diet/Halon bemoan ‘human bfpmclarld hrms owner; mm» alpvoulllu upon m......... mo bu mnrow . nu ma knevu mm, u s : cnrmrmn I :1 mm 15» Ruglmvammu V Chenchemma, AIR 1964 so 135; Emdm .;« pronfhu mo mm mvamrIq5,naInIIy,1r)lhu burden niproolas a maumv Llw my pxumm and M m emu. of pm u . mm cl nndudng 7 sw mcumzuawaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! svrdsnel smm 101 or rm Evrduvca /1:! ovals mm mm mm and Samfun 102 12/ m. Ewdsncu Act mm the law The flm remama cvmtmt em Ml aamnd mm: In a mu lpplicnflun, mwou, m. bmdm u/pma/‘ m m. um suns: cnmsmly lies on me darmam. rm. exammu hamsofland my witness, n W. ma n mm «mm mm 1». MI Ilahl u m. plmdpll . .m um mm :. faunmbbu .==-mm, lhe_mu_5n[m on mmmmompmn mm nfvcumskncu, n my, wmch umgg m. usufllnnl cf mu al-/m-m I! m- tun!-nor the claim :mu:4mmumm:umcwnmmma1 mum and on Ilur MM, m make Wm award ,1 would thus upper, mu I/laugh the ummamn mlbuvflevv Is a mslrsrafiawnvrdplladmgxrrwrwnx consram on ma ummum m. bmvana: .5 munsromdduung evidence changes Man limes 5: mo mu aims claim Dflmon flrogmssax” 2: mwman mandimm um-k Fhmlvl mun bailayl me\=v«lsk|n behan pamhulman lamina pmmlfl am km when man». is bahu Detendan unluk memhukukan pmmannyn wm... biummininun Mahkamah mendapifl Fmak newsman ualnm kes w my memanggfl Dslendan unluk mmmm keterzngandahm x. \lIH1VVDlVV\EMb€‘V‘3Dl-FPIIIESEI‘ yxnv munasahlhdan vm membangkhkin . mm Akla Kalalangan 1950 Mnngwkm kl: mm Sakao m V n. nu ma m 5 Anal mun] a mu Mahkamah momhual pememauan bankul tenlang ; «mm Md: Kmamngzn 1951: m m aevlum cncumstancsa a cum maybe amltmilu flaw mum rnlenncas rm 1». Ibssna usvlenne ah: mms. wna rmgnl be named to new mat-ma! avfdnmcv m we on an rmn m an acbou 1:; rr 5 mm m wwmg Au draw Bum Won:-us, my may gt: :9 slnnallnn mg uvldoncl Mdamd an mu Isms by m. omit A-Iv Dr to weqkuv MI «mace, Nany, mma by am pm, wlm rrllglvtrulnnably um B-In vrpochd tn cm m. wltnlts sw mcumzuawaszmm. um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! 1:1 mm must, nmm am bun mm: mt-rm, homvu wuk, ndducud bymalwrnwuntmmlnflmuumfmbofmulmmmls umllodladraw ma mm mfurunca In um: warm, mam mm! M . Mn no lntwer on that rssua. 14) II 01- m on MM! am. no such ntnvnlnfennev mybu mm :1. on um um‘: mm Mun trauma nldlblnupllnnflon aim, m..nn'mmwnoIIy nn':I-claly. tilt pnkonuafly dvwln-nu! nflocl amunu Ibnncn or lllmzu nllyburudueedonmllmed 24 E-rouavkan llpcmrl nan. Dale-Man‘ Defaman memnakan tear-nw mum pnlwsrlunarl mu seuammya mu,» diuean om fihak Faquam nkl minimum nun: umuk I1suun|flsmk\an Dalam Kssmn, mg-una um aoupa uuann dmmwkkan mahuwn mmakwmkan mm Mxhkzmah ..m.m.u kanankl\ammn Delendan Peuvim Darmdan my: muvwkmmkan pemmzn mm: has Dehnnan gm. mm. mlrqli m kanipa wmm um duper mnanml 25 Damn! keadiin m man: beban mm mm gum. In-Nanak atx Dnlusflin mu mmylhnkilks Pmwmldanmembukukan Vampu i-ysuumn bcvwamn Mlau semasa behau membdok x. kznan, k-Qagatln Dfllndxn unluk mmgmmn am a. Mnhkamah (mun seas-aw JusIIHkas\ mamwmm mamaman mammal anggpan hzhawn «am-um kuwunmnn fakm yam hank akan member! mm mm Delmdan Mankamah nuuamangan aaman Manama! umuk mahkamah m.mmmm.. ammirnn mm m bawah s 1W9MkIx Kslevingan naso mam Dev-oaan an Wamuptm mm De1snd:n mba bonandar keuada human nuhsnyl liupw Mxhlumah mengambfl maklum we/sx sevtm Imam mum." Viwrun vuus Ddsndan hams dupuwnbarvgkandangznbmalw-nan knravu nlmhuaulwmn mu dlplnign dnn umunamm max terukmk kapsaa wa\—hn\as paguam Hamil! Ma\ah1das mm mum Wu Dmarruln mun mkatngmlknn u\eh Dmnx-umak u. hawah an-gun u (Pm a) Vndaks wan Dokumen Balsam: s sw mcumzuanaszmm. «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm sebum! ‘dolmmcn yang ouw formal mm. dmnglur Hun plmhultnyl a»..n...m: n-an unmk pamlrlkn n on. 27 Mahkamlh ml mengnmbfl mamum pmnip mam yang mpxnuikan uhh Mahknman dalam mm In]; Klnqvflulnmngi 2.1.. mm mm mu on mm berikul hamublmg lapavan unfls nmmun W darn harvendaval lmnflungan Vapuvan pohx Dmand-HMS: mum dmemkmkanmeh am mmnv lamina kasnhiharmya utaupvun kshmlarannya 1211 Euncllszl document manymusmmn mu mu cnrnum: m not drsautod u m cunlcnl at to n; mm mm: mm; m dlgnflfi u {g mm; gm. mnMhankMslob9mPaHB' 23 Hams mpmanuau Juga mpman pd“: Dlknuan um mtnm mm min manzxMsu.IIka1idunwnInup:mDdVandun bukun pmakyafll tauumaaaa-u ksjldiin w Sabahknya kamalangln ram-xu paaanm mam xmnm namma Ann! 2017 new mom... hnnyfi «wax ma waklu malam Mn larisbxn 29 Fagawm pmyInna|SP1 mm membaflkan xswanqan hahiwa ‘Snalan Din mmgm Dviundan W pdmandu murmur Pamul m. mumbfl pm 2 Jiwaom, pmnu/yang sum: llplmallm a 15 m. nunrumnl-mbnPu-n lumnllnwinilm 1.2:: mt, flla nmlap-mu pm mu!-m - an Kduwmzn mumbunl Vaoman pohs wm mu marigm kerana kamalangan my mam. ada\ah xenu: nu dI\|hI|dnn .=g. mum maam danlusl Iakla bilmua kamaawgln W taehah mervyababkarv kucodwaan knmda pm: ynng um Van! lemngga uncmucwmn .1." I4-.1311 mums: kc nmuv mdaml nmumm. Kamguan w menyarlah Wag! mm: Daiamln Izaak nmw kn mahkamah mu mmw. ketemnvan mu mmymna wswa flalam Vapfiran path behawu sbbemm baflau mynblmk kn kan:n.VIrvIDmIY1Vl|hflV|| nmu.n.m srNx:u<qcHK27ENaNnsEm1.m mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-01(A)-156-03/2022

PERAYU 1. ) Menteri Dalam Negeri 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia RESPONDEN 1. ) CHONG TON SIN 2. ) NGEO BOON LIN

The following questions will be decided in this Majority Judgment:(1) can the court review the merits of the exercise of the Minister of Home Affairs’ (Minister) discretionary power under s 7(1) PPPA to prohibit any “publication” (defined widely in s 2 PPPA) (Minister’s Decision)?; (2) if the court can review the merits of the Minister’s Decision, what is the applicable test? In this regard -(a) whether the court can rely on - (i) Indian cases on freedom of speech which are based on Article 19(2) IC; and(ii) UDHR and s 4(4) HRCMA - to review the Minister’s Decision;(b) whether the Minister is required to consider the following matters before making the Minister’s Decision -(i) the fact that no untoward incident has arisen out of the printing, sale, circulation and possession of the publication;(ii) the number of copies of the publication which has been published, sold, circulated and possessed by Malaysians;(iii) the view and/or response by Malaysian society or any part thereof to the publication, if any; and(iv) any expert opinion regarding the publication and if there is an expert view on the publication (1st Expert Opinion), is the Minister obliged to procure another expert opinion to support or rebut the 1st Expert Opinion?;(3) whether the Minister is required by Articles 5(1) and 8(1) FC to give a right of hearing to any person who -(a) is “interested” in a publication; and(b) has a legitimate expectation with regard to the publicationbefore the Minister’s Decision is made. This issue entails a comparison between s 7(1) PPPA on the one hand and ss 7(3) and 13B PPPA on the other hand; and(4) did the Minister give any reason for the Minister’s Decision?

19/12/2023

YA Datuk Wong Kian KheongKorumYA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji NawawiYA Dato' Gunalan A/L MuniandyYA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0d61a7cc-981f-479d-90a4-5eded886a708&Inline=true

19/12/2023 15:12:23 W-01(A)-156-03/2022 Kand. 29 S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w—u1(1x)—15e—u3/2022 Kand. 29 19/12/2013 .s;.z-2. m me count or man. or muwsu w=.=su.4rs Junlsulcrlom CIVILAPPEALN -01A sn mm asrwzsu . MENVERI mum NEGERI 2. xznuum MALAYSIA AFPELLANI3 AND 1. cnoms YON sm (mus No: uoszz-a1-555!) |Trad\ng as Gevukbvdaya s...s......e. Bushes: Regwsmlbn Nu 19:m3oan3751aoae7o41o-Du 2. NGEO anon LIN {Umlsd s......:u¢Amma Passporl No’ 5a722aa7e) Rzswounzuvs mm >4. hCnur\u1Ma\a amKua\2 Lum . FedamlTemIn Aggflau and Sana! Puwarx Dwvwan wax... Rewsw Agghnznlxon Nu wA.2s.sg2/232. semen 1. crmg Tan s... mm Na 430322-o1-5551; |TradIm as Gerskbuduya Emernnss s......ass nss..muo.. No 199103030375 umnaromyml 2 Ng-0 Emu L... (Unned 5.3.2; numenm wmpcn Nu 597225373) .. Apvlbanls And Mantel! Dahm New 2 »<...,m Mahyma . . Defendants] coluul: AIIZAH HAJI NAWAWI. JCA GUNALAN AIL MUNIANDV. JCA wows KIAN KHEONG. JCA . A. 6. GROUNDS FOR MAJORITV JUDGNIENI nuoducxlon On 25 9.202: - 11) my veamett s\sIer, Azrzan Hap Nawawx JCA, and I (mawuy Coram) had allwwed mnlslon): and urns appea\ witn wsls (Maiorily (2) my learned brother, Gunalan all Mumandy .t<:A. had given a dlssenflng epimon ms tuugntenz [Majority Judgmtntj pmwtes the reasons (or me Maturity Decwsion and a were u! tne Matorily Judgmenl nee bsen given to Guna\an all Muniandy JCA. Background The nrst reebondent <1" Respond-nt) is the we pmpnetuv at a business named “Gerakbudayi EnIsrWrse' wmch pumisns and mstnbutes books. The second respondent (2'-5 Rnpcndnnl) wrote a book entitled ‘Gay is OKJ A Christian Perspeenve" (seek) wmcn was pubhshsd and dwsmbuled by the 1“ Respondent in September 2013 The fivsl part at me Beak canststed of a eampnattnn at arI\c\es wntten by me 2"“ Respnndanl which had been puhusned zn we/eysiekmr tram September 2010 \o Apri\ 2011 on 1a.2.2o2o - m) m wmn ur prrnnea mntlu and nmammnv wnemsl ma MM: «nnuunz ta wnmn arnmvlsd numsr or nor contmnrng My mom nspnmnnauan, (0) anytmna which lay In rum, wave or In any malmu is mum. alruwlsfinq words mum, and M; an M1.» rsconifllg. 5 7 unmmm nublicaliens (1; u an Minister 1: nllsnod rim lny publicution contains my mm, cnrrcnturl, pnouogr-pn. I-Mm. nom, wnelnq, sauna, music, smunnnn at any olhur mine which n In any Inarmof nu/uam.u.= at Ithaly 2.. ». pnludlclal on public anion .na..:.-9,, mung, nrwhicn is likely n. .;.nn public Gbinlon, or much I: or 1: mrm be mnmy In .ny :.w nr 1: olherwltt prcjudrerxl to or It may to ba Pmludfclar to wane /nluul or national Intunu n. mlY In nu lbw/ulo dlscndon by am: nuamnm In me Euzefl: pmnum Illlnr -baonmly M sublecl to such comlmons u mny be mescnm, me pnnung. lmpoflmun. nvuancnnn. npmdartlulv. paousnlnn, me, Issue. drculallrm, dlsmbuflun or I-wuvsslnn or mt nuwuuon and Inn": puhllclflonl nlkhoyubllsntr cuncumnd (2) rn Inc can of a wbhcalron ongmauna /71 any counhy oulslds Mlfaysra. an moor under subsechorv (1; may, n ma orv1ersapruvIdes- ta: Dmn/M ms rmizonalmn uf any at an Pubhcallons whemslbsfwu or gift! mo data or me omsr, subject ta mm madman: as my D: pvascnbsa Ihsmn. ra) n (he can of a Dcrlowcal Dub!/canon. pmhm me lmoolm/an oranynasz or mm rssw mmat. 4c; rn me case an puhlacalran men has been Issued arappears or pwpon: m have been Issued mun any nub/Ann/ng house, 11 agency or ulnar mums spec/fled /n the mar, aroma/u me lmwnatton of my ems! nuommn wmm may at any tvmv whnmcr Dolor: at aim the rule of me arder has been, or appear: or pwpm :0 have been, msued mm the spsmfled pub!/shlng house, agsrwyovathsr swms,‘ an rvqum: M publvsncr mmal to muka sum d-pout: afsuch nmaurvl and in ma mannor as may be Dfissamodmsmln below any sucll puoucemn may be /moaned. (3) What: the Mwsm is 51031104 nm on pun/mm a! any mark-um ms -ma In mnumnuon al rm An at my rubs Mord-rmndc mu-mm or my condlllan om. Ileonce orpvmllnlnny my mmvng Io mmon ordohmallon, he my my vlvlnn men puwsrm IN oppouunlw In lhow um way can down-It mulv und-rp-r-or-eh 210; should not bu to-MM. an!» m d-pom nrparl rimnaito bu fonbllod «J V‘/mthar or not an Urdu! has bzcn mm umar msuaon (J) m. calm may we: the man: many be/ante lhereaf, rlany — rs; to be fnflalfsd whsm ms punysnu rails 10 appear m court In armm any mmmal chewy: 0' EM’ i¢1'°" "’l""9m My menu In wnnuctian with such publumhun, or an In as pay: our m servemsnr o/anyludflmenl untamed avlrrm Ins uuzmsnw am; out any woeudmy m uormocnon wvtn sum publaumon. (5) When . denosd made undarnarsflmbh 2m) 1. M15196 ta be «mm m unma m satriamenl 0/ any van-am unaersubsscman (:1 av (0. tr». nuts! or Pmmbvlron mu xymcnon (1) shall Dtcomu mamas unless we panama; makes a !Im.f-ardlwsvkss mayberequlre-1 hylhe Mlnlatct (6! A may or ronlvn nunusnu man 5. ruponsrblc and link for any lcllon In name may m-mm pullllxhod In his puhlicntian - 11 sw xwanufivnuuupfiazl ca ) «mm smm IIIVVDIVWW be used m yaw .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (emphesxs added). 15. The Majority corem is olme vonowing vrew: (1) accurdmg lo Amde 1U(2j(a) FC. Pamamsm may by -/aw‘ [defined m Amcle 1511(2) FC xo mclude 'wrmen Van/‘] impaee “rasIn'c!ians" an the “Ireedom of speech and expressron" m Arude wake) FC as Parhamenl ‘deems neoessary or expedient m me rrrrsresr or the security 0/ me Federation or unypan mereur, pub/fc ardel armors/II}/‘. FPPA Vs e wrmen wew Vegislaled by Parliament pursuant to Amcle 10|2)(a) FC Ey mue ammele 4(2)(u) so, the veuduy cl PPPA shew no: he quesmunea on the ground that FPPA rmposes such rwriuions as are mentioned m Amcle 10(2)|a] FC but xneee resmrmens are not deemed neoessary ar exoecflem by Parliament lcrlhe purposes menuenea in Amde 10(2|(a| FC In any evenl, lhere is a “strung plecumplion“ that FPPA rs consmuuunal and the burden of me! lies on the perry seekmg to establish me ccnvary - please rever lo me supreme caurre Judgment delwsred by Erigemoeeph JrSCJ In Public Proncmnr v Funq Chan Choon [1994] 1 MLJ 566, at 576 m this case, me Resperraems are not alleging max 5 741) PPFA ws uneonsmuuer-av; and (2) me ooun can revrew me mems oi the exercrse of me Mwscers Decisxun. Our reasons are es {allows — (5) (h) nmwllhsiandlng Parllamenfs employment ar ma wlde lerm 'abso(uf9 discrstlbrl n s 7m PPPA. the leglsiahlre has also used the Voliowirlg phrases ln mal amvlslon I (l) 'IlksIy to be pmjudlcmi to pub/IC older, mom/lty, manly; (M ‘wary to alarm Public upl‘mL7rl': (ill) “/Ike/y ta as contrary lo anylsw“, and (w) '/Ike/y to be prs/udlclal lo pub!/r: lnlarssl or nallarlal inleresf. The use ol ms above Phrases ln s 711) PPFA clearly shows Parllamsnrs inlanllm Ihal any exercise ol “ by me Mmlslar pursuanl la lhal pmlllsion can be reviewed by the mun an me exlslenoe ulaled ‘absolute alscrsl uv non-exlslence olma likelihood at the menus in Ihal Dmvislurl, and lhe lollwmg Calm al Appeal cases have declded lnal a Mlnlslefs Dscisian is amenable (0 Judicial Rsvlaw - in Data‘ Sui Syud Hamid bln sy-d J-ular Albur (Momorl nulam Nowl) v sls Fnnlm (Mallysln) [m2] 5 MLJ aw, al [41 and (51, Abdul Wahab Palail JCA has delivered the lallmmg judgment - (l) “{4} mo rmnlmr 7.: mm mm nhsalule dhclelfon Io pmhlbfl either Abaoluoaly or m Mn or sums: to cundllinnl, - nublfullon mu hmm puhllclflnni ul 1». pummm mmnut mum In 1: sntlxflnd my pm ol 1: V5 (.; in lnymnnnuprujudic n.,...:.-mymo. 9../.mm.: to man: wor, mommr. mmrr.-or my maly to alarm Fubur DPln)on; or /:1 Ilkaly mm contrary ra anyraw; or 14; muly on M w-Iudrc/.1 ou puonc lnturusk or nmmummn I5] Altnouan ma news: to ban 1: n N: absolute ducnliwv, it is a-ponmz upon an llinislnr buing nrmm n: in mm pncodonl ablIclIvaIacts' (emphasis added), (H) in Arumugam all Kulimutllu v Menleri Dalam Nogurl, Mnlnyxin A on [2013] 5 ML! 114, a\ [5] lo [11], [131 and [M], Apanm Ah JCA (as he: then was) has decided as IOHOWS - ‘I31 From an ubovu Irvumunls, 1: seems mu the crux I1! me appfllanrs cwvknllorv It Inc: In an to u Ipizllod on M: rm. or 'pr-iuuzml In public ardlr‘ :. ... objnuvo :.u:,.m..1 oh subllnllve test m ll 1; our eonslduvd vlm mu: m- M911 lssut mm nan: umpum .. propoud Lay the ubeflam. n 1: net . clear cm of woman mm or sunhww run. n It . lumen of new 1: 4mm on m. wmdlng: u! m. truhllng law um mmnu such pawn: la in: lllnlslor. Yln cnallonne to ma txamlu of ma Mlnlmrr pawn, In rm: an, I: m Nrpld or my pawn: undnr: 7 [PPPAL n Is Ilrlnfoll awn-m m uamm crosaly such arm Dawns much rs ronnuramx «mm s m) Inrru ho: rm mm.-..,. 1.. . 1m, 5: m. am... .. snlslled ml 4.. mny n. his nhsalute .nm.u... by «aw Are my ,.....u.s¢.m, of [M POWII bi/W vesrod Pfltonllf)’ In Ml um... ....: corollary m u... ...u,.,,, ..., uorclsu of such Down! I: .., m. ....,.m. ..u.+.m.. .1 m. Minister. u... m. cm for turn slflsiution ls Jubllctlw. If is without mum . xubllclivo dlscnuanary pm: of the mmsm [111 E-/In mouqn mm mm mm ...n)ocuvu disc:-tiannry pow" ullho mum-r, u was runner unwed say the -pneum mu me IM Ievulres u. ablecflve lssessmenr be underlnken say on M!/vlrtu. nu upper:-nc mllod on me F049!-I Cour! mlmn Vrvblrml sum Mn mmun sum. it Montarl Dnlam Nngon, mnym A Dr: 12421913 Mu aamzmal 1 Cu 300 In Plmeullr wneu lrreads u Iolfowr AWMM W5 em mm mm Mun wnv blnalny pncldunl 1. m ctmecr stnkumint nf 11.. 1.», 1.. m. prison! n..:...c. n :5 lnsumchnt u the ummu moagm n. ma rasonubh vmum to 5. uumu mu 1». lpplllnnt and noted In . murmur Dfiludlcral to public Md". rm Wnsflon um . cowl mustask usum whotmr . mmm. Minislur npnvi:-d a! rm .».m:.: an am m m. shtimenl of men would aw-may ». mvma mil 2». action: or m. .,.p.u...: HIVI ,,..,-mu-u.: in puhlic am, [131 01! m. rm. wmumury. men is Irmmrimd wnn ma sublocllvv diurvllonlry pawn! al rm Mrnlstar, which hn gut m bu ob/mmty vhwud by lhu cum, I: Is our Iudm-n2 mat wc an no ruson no awn Imm mu conclusion: ul Du lumld uialiudu-. who his succinctly wflmn In his grounds of iuaamnz wmn, mm nu, ruds 1.! follows: m; n I: wrludvmonl cm on em rm: sun. but 1». m:s».,.. by m. o.,my mm... m m u.. my 1; n-mm! .9 oumgoou: um mus Iuvlc nnr amm any aazonlo-1 non! standard; file Icflorl taken by Mo DCPWY Mmrstvr Wu om tfvlt is nuflod 14: D1 (Inn in lhaimnrutaln-tlomlncumy(In:-Iudlngnubllc ordell Inr which mo exocmlvt Mars MI ntwnsrbrllnr and alarm has mm In wuvco: 17 allnlonnnlon rim ammy n no decide wan the nocusary hctfonr:.Arn1 vmumor ma daemon /: :n.um..: a. nm. 1. . qulnlnn cl llcls, m DI decmed by lneludye ' (emphasis added), (V11) acoordmg to Muhamad AIM Vusuf JCA In Seplakat Elukllf Sdn and v Mouleri Dnlam Nlnuri A Anor and anothor Ippoll [2015] 2 cm 323, at [1 01 - “[1471 when ... -dministuuve power is wunud as . xubioctiw dircmiun, mm will moi-u in ..-m-:. to rwi w mm an n. ab/«NV: xssissmnnk (Manama Elam um Nool V. Kvlu: Polls mm I cum Apmars 120021 4 cu aw; Ministu 0! Home Alain‘, u.:.,q- V. »..m.... At»... Kn-d-run Nognru mgon cu 699, [1990] v cu (MW) 156: (199011 ML] 351, mm. sum Rlsmn Satan V. mmn Dnllm My-rl. mun-*. 5 or: mm; 1 cm 300, (201013 MLJ aw; rm mat is mu al whether . nasonnble mlnlsm slmimvy shunted wnulfl nave Jared 1.. me sun: Inarmel. Yne nouns cln run an. .m=»u ul mu sllblncfln dlacrvtlan ngllnst ahjscllvu 1.“, 1.. mm In .m.m.:... mm»: m. dlnrltlan has bun may Indlusrfr exercised" (emphasis added): and (xv) In Mohd Falzal bln Musa V M-ntari Kasalamamn Dalam Nogori [2013] 3 MLJ 14, at [13] to [20]. u Zamha Vusaf JCA (as she then was) has gwsn me iullvwing Audgmenl — ‘mu n clnnol n. ans»-ma mu sun-5 m; 1:-nu, M/0.1 msnlmc dlscnflon n m. Mlnrsm to makt such man as tho nnmm DIUC7. Sn Arlmluilm I/IKaUmulhu Howvwr, It also cannot an dilpllltd thlr such disrrition musk mo hnn :...: llrmk In Amid n baing mused av) W. mull list: my In mind, that u 7: rm 'PPIlIanl': mnkonuon um nu Iundamunlnl Ham: undul m. away Conrlltlmon am boon mlrmynd. rn. ncenl mu m illdic rmnn u durluhd by our -nu cum 1. mn the nut and hm zdvlncod nun. Ibo sublnctm to um ol m. ubllcriw me, :1 mt. Ictvon ma: illndamonllf twin. 100 court will not only look inno praudurll flimuss am nlsosuhslunllvolulrnus .. R111 Lulnad senior federal cwnsvf submmui mm M: mma Man cmmludvc mu Inllnwcd MI ob[IclIvu mm. mm mp-ct w- an-gm. In consldnrlnl ma mlnlshfs anmnvn only and In rnmnu to consldur an ram nrmnr-.1 by m. ppot/-nr an m. mm Ind zontvnrt 0/ mo law books -mi in trnlinv mu Flier clrculnfon .5 hnlevvank in ma mtnmm assomon :5 la mu pokonllallry ollnv fourhooks to pr-/uam puonc mu, w. my that m- Iumld High Cnurljudgo hid in Ilnklppliud mu ».-L en: cues subim.-live mg Hnvirw :. :9 omir-ni sinun. anamisn-ruaain iv-sir. wmrh usud Iubjocflvn list could not pnv/nil om Tllulnr Roman Catholic’: cue. conuvuenuy. mm dun rewvcf, vie lurnld mun com Juan: -ma whun mu pimrt nllmce an mas: rm uses.“ (emphasis added). G. How should noun Isle ow Mlnl is. Framised an ins warding oi 3 7(1) PPPA, the Minister may exercise tiis discretionary pawer regaining a pubiicalinn in any one oi the ioiiowirig ciroumstanoss- (1) ii tne putaiication contains ariymirig wnicti is actually prejudlolalim is) public order. in) morality: ic) seourily; wt uuoiio inierest, or (a) national iriieresi: (2) inns conteriis of ms publication are llknly to he preiuaiciai lo - (a) public order. (b) niorsiiiy; or (1) an Asmstam Enforcement omcer lrum me Regumory and Eniarcemenl D1vIs1an (Enforcomunt Dlvlllonj 01 me Ministry 91 Hams Affaus (MHAL oondumed a random inspection of books which were d1sp\aysd for sa\a in me 1-‘ Respandenrs hoclstnre in no 2, Jalan Euklt 11/2, 43200 Fslalmg Jaya, Selar1g0r|')arvIEI1san‘ and (2) ma MHA omoer Dough! (he Bonk (mm u1a1“ Respondenl (or a review and exammanen by MHA under |he Pflnling Presses and Pubhcaliuns AC1 1984 (PPPA). wnn regard to the Book - (1) the Bock was ms: rewswed and exammed by me Enloroemenl Division: 12) the Envomemem Diwslun men subrmlled me Book In the firs! apps\Iar1(.M1msferaiHoms Aflalrs (1" Appellant), (3; the 1-1 Appellant had rewswed the contents at me Bonk arm was satisfied man the Bank had mmamed matters which were likely lo be prejuducm Io — (a) publmorder: (b) morality, and (c) Dubl1c1r1(ere5(;ar1d (4; on 17.11 2020‘ me 1“ Appellanl vssued an order under s 7(1) PPPA m pmmm ansalucexy ma pnnfing, 1mporla(1un‘ (3) W (0) securi V to) pubiicinleresiiol (a) national interest; if the publication contain: anything which is likely to aiarm pubiiti or it tiie oenterits or trie publication are - ta) contrary to any iaw; or to) iikeiy to be contrary to eny tow (1: Allamaflvl Lttntni [Sot:1|on 7(1) PPFA|). 17. Ttie Majnrity corarn Is at trie view mat the tesl to review the exercise oitrte Ministers Decision is as rotiows (1) (ED wnetrier me gruunds tor the Ministers Decision are based on any one or more oi the 13 Atternstive Limbs [Section 7(1) PFPA] [Grounds (Mln|shr'a DlciI|olI)]; whether a ressonebie Minister in the position or the actuai Mimslef and is apprised oi all the relevant tents and oimurnstanoea as the actuei Minister, wouid be satisfied that trie contents of true Pubiiualion in queshan tati wi|hin any one or more M the Grounds (Ministers Decision) mm; and my Pavllamenl has emplnyed me term -msly In seven out av me 13 Nlemauvs Limbs [Seclion my PPPA] (7 “Likely” Llmbl [Socflon 1(1) PPPAI) The |erm we/y' has been construed by the Court at Apnea: m Mohd Falzll, at [21], as loHows- ‘[21] n.. mm which pmhlhns me four mas. demon m. four new .. .. llklly In A. pniudinnl 1.. puhlk: mm m. Ialrnzd Nivh Courlilldge in am 2: nl rm LIN)/ship‘: vmunds of mmmem viewed um mo Dhnse 'm/uamu to wane emu‘ dot: net mmmny "hr in In. .xrmm o! In nctunl public dlsnnior, am Includu lnythlng which M: m. ‘potnmal to dump! public nmuc wrm due refitted. we the! the emphasis wan: to no nu: on m. woms ‘wary to In pn/uatcm n:' ma not mully 'prI]lIdInI:l topublfc mm .3 Jul): 7(1)9IAcl3a1 Bmvldns (or two sltunlona, on. 1: mm. M- hubllcnllanls pnludlcrnlta paw: -um and IM mm wnuv ms rlkely to M pr-macimo public Did". 1.. mi: mum cm. tho nrdor mm mu :1 '1: Ilksly la 5. pm/‘udic a nu Is prlludfclal to public ontar, man u must be Shawn m. ulsluvcn ohm actual public drsomor. But If In It -umy to no Wilumcral 10 man: own‘. is in cm inslznl cu am it would zavlr nnylhirvy which has rh- pakunfill m .1.-mm public am. So 1.. ml. cnnloxg oven mom we mm mm the learned man cuunludnt. Mal mm needs In M Pmven Hon 1: not mu-1 pilblrv .1/mm’ but anylhltvv wmcn has Illa pom. .1 to .4.-mm punnc cider; n is not boo-us: anm warm 'p:-/mm: to man: must‘ am because me me: sures ‘Is mrely to be nreludlclal ta nub”: umr (emphasis added) ta 19. The Cour! pr Appear in Maui: Faizai has diirerentiaied me meaning dr “aclual public prder lrum '/Ike/rhaad a/pre,uui'pe to public oniev". Acecxding ip Moria Fniul, the phrase ‘likely to be prs/udicfal to public order may auvsr -anyrh/rig which has the poiemrai to disrupt pumic order. For tne 7 “Likely Limbs [Seclian 7(1) FPPA], me Maipriry corarn accepts me nieening or ‘like/V as decided in Mona Fllxul. The purpose at me 7 “Like/_V Limbs [section 7(1) PFFA] is in confer on me Minister a preventive power tn ban any pubiieahdn which has the potential to muse me aeruat subiecl mener ol the 7 “Likely Linips [Section 7(1) FFFA} ueiore tne subiect rriauer becomes a reeiiry. such a purpose is uriderstandabie, ii nor neeessaryi |n prevent any innarrirnewry pubhcauan fmm rearing |he labnc pi ouv rnuiti-rseiai, niuiti- religious and mum-cullurai eocieiy. Tne appiiearipn ol the Test in a panicuiar case depends on the contents L71 me pubhcaucn in question end an the relevant teas and cimumstances regarding the pupticauori. Accordingiy. rrorn irie view point 01 the slats decisis riadinnei cases an the vahdlly nr Invalidity dr Ministers decisions regarding publications pursuant to s 711 ) PPPA carvio| be binding precedents Whethlr B-In II u-lid tumor 1. 7 1) PPPA According to the Gazelte Nutihcatiun (Earn). the sari was issued by me Minister on the louowing three grounds: (1) me Eouk was hkely in he praiuaimai In public order: 12) me Book was hkely in be preiuaiaai In muralily, and 13; the Book was hkely in be preyudiciai lo pubiic inIeres1 [1 Grounds (aan)]. 20 Appiying ins Tesi, ms mam issue in ms Appeal is whelher a ieawiabis Minisier in the position 01 me 1“ Appeiiani and I5 apprised of aH the reievani iacis and cimumsiances regaiding the Book as me 1-1 Appaiianc, wouia be sausned than me ‘ and oonlems 0! me Eook Vall within any one or mam ai ins 3 Grounds (Ban). H(1). Wn Book likely to pre udlol “mumtlgm 21. Firsiiy, Ana Maiom, coiam nas perused me we omie Book (Gay IS OK! A Christian Perspective) (Book's TlIIe)am1 iis aniira oonienis (snows coimnm This Majuniy Judgment snaii radar in ine Book's Tina and Book's conienis ooiiecuvery as me ‘Back (1I1Ia and I2on\onIs)" On an oiaieciive assessment ov me Euok (me and CoMen|s), the Mainncy Cnram finds man we Bonk (me and Contents) conveys ine generai message and/or impression that humosaxuallly is not objectionable in Chrisllamly aim W. is therefore pennissime In man reiigian [GonIraI Messagallmpussion (Eonk)] 22 The term ‘mommy is not defined in PPPA. Tne Majnnty Cunam refers la the ioliowing uicuunanss which give me meaning of “moraiiryx 2: IN xKdhDRVnUIUDF7s1\anCA -ma Sum mm. WW he HSQG M van; M niimruflly MIN; dun-mm VII AHLING mi (1) according io “Oxford Eng/ran Dictionary‘ ioem, “moralm/' means- “Mural me, bohnvlour conlarmlng la maul 1... or accept»: nmai uanu.-ms. up. in nlltlon to uxu-I meme, nemnei aua/mssjudgod m be good “ (emuhesis addcdl: and (2) ‘B/ack's Law oicmnenr, Nmnn Edmon (2009), at p. 1100, gives the iaiiowmg defin on o1“mors/rt_V - 'manllry(1AcI 1 Cwvlormflr wnn rvcovnixad nllu olcwnctcnridud. 2 rn. ch.lr.Ic1lr DI buiriq V.-mm, up. in Juxual maflets. ‘mm terms "morlIfo"’ and "lmmnml/W Irv Imdovtlood to mm . uxuil connanfion " William » Golding, PM/osophy oVLaw 55 (19757 ' (emphasis added). 23. The Majority Comm accepis the above meanings oi “mols/IV as intended by Pariiamcni HI 5 my PPPA. Pmnisec on the above meanings oi ‘more/n/'. me Mammy Curam nas no nesmauon to decide |ha| a reasmabls Minister VI ma posmon oi lha 1- Appeliani and I5 apprised 01 all (he reievam iaas and circumstances regavdmg me Book as me 1" Appeiiani, wuuld be saflsfied mai me General Message/impression (Book) is Vikely in pieiudics “mola/My’ (Llkollhood Io Pniudlu Morality). The exlslenoe oi me 15 IN xKAhDfivnuuupF7eziancA -nae Sum ...na.. M“ be used m mm we ann.u-y MW; dun-mm n. arium pen.‘ Lwkehhood to Prewdice Moralny In lhxs case is prermsed on me lanowmg reasons: (1) the mural vames at Mamysian someay do um condone, let akune accept‘ humusexuality In other words‘ rmmusexuamy is oonsldersd \mmora\ by Malaysian Dublin. 12) m the HC case cl Llm Hul Llnn v CM Nuddl-sun [1979] 2 MLJ134,at135,Yusof1 J has deemed as lollaws - ‘ms patfbanw be/onyx 117 ms cmme mmmmmy rn Sarawak sne mmxaa my: msrrlflgs wmv ms msaonaem m cam. m ./ww 1972 m my ms um: yair, um Iutumod Io Sarawak «mm by m. Iesaondsnt In 1974 may /wed and cohabirzd .3: Teacher‘: «menus sl Mama! /n me dismal nl Baum m .IanuBW 1975 Ins respolrrlsnt 19/! me mammomr name ma wsm ru Smgupus an Pu: my back to Canada Na nu-1 Indicated nu ma palfllansr max he wauld notmmm wnfle the marrfllwf wu msrsrvng, my pemom said mat on Ivspondvnr ma tlkun own: and w-v-tap-d . pmponslw lot homanxunllly which 9.. ma not encounyed not museum. nmmg lnls pelted In 1274, Inc minondent mu spent man ol his mm mm ms mm mum oi ms own rm, lndudifw sum. wly-ward 1..-/.41.’: my drug-Ilka; rn. rllpundilvl Draught mm Irionds am (D m. mummanhl homo um on mm occnxlons ha also took dlllws and sup: mm lhom In an noun n'.vm, nglrd m tin plflfiunufx upbringing .. In .u.'.:.-c rune ofchlneae origin, In my onlnlan, n 1. reosarubk for as re view the m olsodomy wlln lbhonence and two}! 1; ng-lnsl ml. conduct. ‘ran as: M xodalny la caruldnnd smmalus and unclenll by on corrrrmrnmr to man an. BOIWW-F. Such mule-mu conduct mouwn p-rmmaa amanv mm w-stlmora shnuld natbn nflnwad In mmpr me commwllfl/'s my mm." (emphasis added). and (3) In View ollhe reason and HC decision slalea VI the above suh— paragraphs 11) and (2), a reasonable Mlrrisler in me Doslllcvl oi me 1“ Appallanl and is apprised oi all me relevant lacrs zirld circumstances regarding lire Book as me 1-‘ Appellant, would have been 5 led that me publlcaliun, sale, circulation and possession cl me Back (aaalr-s Publlcmiorl/Sula/Circulallun/Pussnssiun) HI mis oourury has me polerrlial In preludice morality, namely, mere exisls a Likelihood lo Premise Morallly Wllh mgam la the Book H(2). wlmrr-rauakwaslikal lo reud|ce“ublicon.1e/' 24 According to Sexual Sn Ram FCJ in me Federal cuun case ol Dlrnla surl. hlrl Rlaman Slleh v Marrurl D-larrr NI orl. Malaysia 5 Dr: (20101 3 MLJ am, al [12], an act preludlbes “public order‘ lHhe act disrupls — (1) the “even lempo olme lrie onrre community‘; (2) pu safely: or (3) publlclranqulllmy, 25. in View of llle General Messagellmpreeelen (Bank), a reasonable Mlnlsiel in me peelllen cf me 1-1 Appellant and le apprleeu ol all me ralevanl lads and circumstances regarding the Book as me I“ Appellenl, would have been satisfied lllal lrle General Message/inlereeaien (Book) is likely lo plejudlee or has me poxenllal lo prejudice “pub/lL‘ oldaf as iollowe: (1) the Book has ole poienlial in disrupl me even lenlpo of me me cl our conlnlunnyl audio! 12; me Bonk la likely |o alerum puhlic tmmzulllly ln Malaysia lukelineee to mlualee Public Order] The General Message/lrnpresslnn (Bock) would cause me existence ol a Llkeilhood ta Freludice Puellc Order because . (a) .1 a male perscn (X) eenlnlne a nelmsexuei acl wllh enamel male person (V) by me lnlmauenarl o1><'s penis lnia line anus 0| V, this hurmvsexual aci consulates an uffenoe under 3 377A (carnal inleroaurse against the aide! 0/ name) ol me Penal Code (PC) wnlcn ls punishable with e maximum inlprisonnleni el 20 years and/orwhlpplng under s 3775 PC‘ and lb) ll me Back ls not banned, ' llkely lnai ine General Messegenmuraslon (Bank) would disrupt ule even Iempu el me Me at our commumly and/or public xlenqulllry as follows - ll) there would be alaaflecxlan in lne Malaysian puellc wlin Ihe Malaysian auincriiies on why lrle Bank was allowed In be primed, said and circulated in this oaumry wllen in ln xKdhDRVnUIDDF7s2lanCA -nee s.n.l In-vlhnrwm be used e mm ms nflmnnllly MIN: dun-mm VI] nFluNG WM! nemoscxuelily is enniinalizea in as 377A and 3773 PC (Publl: Dln action)‘ and inc Public UlSaWEC1lOr| has llie polenllal (0 lead in public unresi, if nul public riot. N(3). Wu Book Ilkoly to an ndlc 'gubIIc Interest‘? 26. 27. The lenn ‘publi 'IIIerasf' is defined in OED as follows: “rm ban-In or cimnz-in emu community -c . whom‘ in. nubile Wad “ (emphasis added) The Majonly cbiain adupls me abuve ordinary ineening at 'bublic lrlre/es! In 5 7(1) PPPA. in me Malorlty ceienvs View, a reasonable Minisler in inc besilion of me 1'‘ Appellant and is eppnsea of all me ielevenl lens and circurnslances regarding the Book as lne 1" AppellanL weuia have been satisfied inai the General Messagelinipisssien (Book) is likely lo prejudice ar has me poicnlisl lb pieiudice public interest (Likelihood to Prlludlcl Publl: lnnmci This decision is based on me iolimiing reasons (1) as explained in me above sub-paragraphs 25(3) and (bi. llie General Message/lmpresslarl (Bonk) nas me pclenlial in cause Public Dlsaflscimn wnien in luni, may lead in public urvEs1 sueii a pelenliai ouieeine lioni me Eook‘s Publicaliori/sale/cimulaiion/Pcssessien, is likely |a prejudloe public tnteresx because the Buck's Punttcanon/sate/crmutatten/Fosseestm does not bring any aenem nr advamage |o our soetety as a whale Nor Is there any pubttc good wmon may arise from tne Bank's Publtcallon/Sale/Ctwulatton/Fossesston: and 12) the Genera! Messagemnpreeston (Book) conveys to nan- chnsuane tn Matayeta (ha! homnsexuamy Vs pennmaa tn cnnsnantty Homasexuamy Is not aflawed In tstant. Aucerdingty, the General Messagellmpressiun (Bock) does not promote a narmomous rslaltonshtp between Chrishans and the Musltm majnnly In Ims country. I. ma laarnod HO Juztgg aggly tho Test? 23. u ts trite law man an appenate mun can umy imervene and se| astde a lower courts exercise at discreliun when we lower mun has - (1) cammilled an emr a! law: or (2) taken into mount an inelevam constderanon In making a decision » pteaee reler It: me Federal Coun‘s Judgmenl delivered by Abdul! Hamid Emaeng FC.) VI Dalo‘ Sari Anwu Ibrnnint v Public Prosecutor [2010] 2 MLJ 312. at [A8] 29 In one case. mm respect. the learned HC Judge are not empty the Test as explained In the above Pans H and Htt) lo H(3). ms consmutes an error of law an the pan of me HC whtch warrants appellate tntenrention H" Appealanle Error) If the leamsd Hz: in IN xKdhDRVnUIUpF7e2\anCA ‘Nata Sum ...n.. WW be used m yaw ea nflmnnflly mt; dun-mm VI] mum Wm! c. 5 10. ll. pmauaion, vepwduawrl, punlicalicn. sale, issue. circulation, dlslribulion and Dossesslorl oi the Book (am). The Ben was puhlishsd in me Federal Gazelle on 17.112020 [Guflh Notlficnflon (B|n)]. Frocudnlns In mo Hlgh Court He The 1-‘ and 2'“ Respondenls lrelened collecuvely in lms Malarlly Judgmanl as me “Rc:pondIlltI') med an applicallan in liie HC agalrlsl me I“ Appellanl and me Malaysian eauemmenl (2~-1 Appellanl) iui, amang nines‘ an alder n1 cerfiorali la quash ma Ban (Jud I Review Application) This Mamily Judgment shall reler in me 1-‘ and 2"” Appellants colleclively as me 'AppIll.Im2". The HC granted leave (or me Judicial Review Application The learned HC Judge subsequenlly allowed me Judinlal Review Appllualion as lulluws- (1) s cenmn order was granted lo quash me Ban‘ and (2; me Appellanla shall pay oasis in a sum cl RM5‘OD0 Io llle Respondents (Hols Doclslnn). The Appellanls nave appealed to lnis mun against me HG’: Decision (mi: Appnal) 39. Judge had seemed ma Test, II is ctear mat a reasonable Mlmstzer in the paslflon of me 1*‘ Appalrent and ts appnsca at all the relevant facts and emmnatanoes regarding the Book as me 1-‘ AppsHant, would have been seusned ollhe exwslenoe of— m Ltkehhaod te Frsyudlce Murahiy; (2) Ukehhand to Prejudice Puhhc order, and (3) Likelmood lo Prewdice Pubuc |n|eresI (reverted colletmvely in |hrs Maionty Judgment as lo Pnludlu Moulhy/Publlc ord-n/Public Immt“). ‘hood The evmenuat basis tor me 1" AppeHan('s juslnficaflon of the Earl was the Book (mic and Contemsj wtucn — (ab conveyed tne eenerat Message/Impression (Book): and (up gave nse la me Likelihood la Premitce Maralny/Public Order/Publtc \n|eres|. The existence 0! Ltkehhaod |o Premice Morality/Public Order/Public Interest dislmguishss tms case lrom all the prevnaus cases cttec by tne Respondenls' lesmed counsel, Mr. Edmund Ban Tai seen. . With resaecl, me Isamsd HCJ made a Nam ermr at fast in deeming that the 1“ Appellant ‘/11 [act dissected signr/“man! excerpts‘ mtne Bonk tzm Appealabla Error) because - J. I‘) (2) (3) the reamed HCJ rarrea to consraer paragraphs 9(a) and 12 oi the 1“ Appeuants amaavrt amrrnea on 27.5 2021 11“ Appanann 1-‘ Amaavm which stated tnat the 1‘ Appellant had read me elmre Book In other words‘ tne 1- Appeuant ma not ‘L1issecl“ tne Book: the 1“ Appellam was only mghlighlmg rna Likelihuod in Prejudice Merahly/Pubhc Order/Pubhc Interest m sub- paragraphs 12|e)\a[i|oHhe1" AppeHan|'s 1" AW'\dav||: and the fact lhat the 1*‘ Appeuam umy highhghled passages in 42 out at 226 pages or the Book. dud net mean that the other 134 pages 04 me Book nagata the exrstanea oi tne Lvkehhaod lo Prejumce Moramy/PubHc Order/Pubhc Interest. H R rihnn'sa7 32. Article l9(I)(a) and (2) re aromas as venowa ”Am:4e V9 Pmlectinn alcerhln right: r:glrm'ng Inedarn nlwnch, at: (1; All chitin: man um um right- ra» lo iveedom arspeecn um umesslon.‘ r2) ' Numlrw in subvrlluu 1-) ursr-rm (1) man um um up-ruion ol my Inrilfinq lnw, arpnvln! rho sm. Imm mmna nny rm, In an r. 5 such Iaw rm»... naaarublu institutions on Me eltlrclsl OH!!! Hill! confuvid by the said sub-clausl In In: Inflnrls of MI iovllvlwlfi’ illfl Vnlllflli’ of India, IIN sunurity al In: sum, rn....sr, rlllfions wim innivn Sr-In, Dublin: ordu, docomry or nw-llrr. or In umlon In cunmnpl or man. deilmlnlm arinckemenlla .n olkrlce “ (emnnasis added). 33. In suppon ol lhe HG‘; Declsiurl, me learned NC Judge has rehed on, among others, Rzdh:kr1|hrun'a cm. wllh respect, lhls wnslllutas an error at law (am Appnlzb Error) due la lna following reasons U) Anlcle 19(2) lc provides mal a scale VI India may make any law whlch lnlposss ‘reasonable rest!/crlons‘ on ma sxerclse of the lreednm of speech and expression “in the fnlaresm of lha savemlgnly and inlagrily of India, the security of the Stale, friendly rslalians wnn fwelgll Sfales, Dllb/lc order, decency or mora/fry, er in /e/afian in contempt av ml/rt, delamatlon or lncllalrlsnt lo an affs/we". The wording ol Amcls 19(2) lc IS materially ailleranl lmnl our Amcle |D(2|(a) FC (Famsms/lt may by law impose ., all [ma /rssdom of speacn and expresslon as Par/l'ameIl!l Ueems necessary or median: m the interest 0! me seounly 0/ me Fede/anon or any pan lnsnsof, fnsnd/y rslsnons mm other countries, public order or moralrly and rssmctrans deslgnsd to pmlsct the privileges of Parlllamerlt Dr of Elly Legislalive Assembly or to pm»/ids agalrls! contempt 0/ court, defamation. or rncilemenz to any olferloe), and (2) our Supreme calm has decided as lellaws M rung Chm choon, at p 5751:: 57e— ~cI..IIy, III.n.Im, In nI.I.ysI., lln puslllon III In. com whvn eonslderinn In Inmnwn-nI or w: RIIIIII Irmawn or wlecn ma ¢xI"\.u-Ion] ls uurmnx hum Inn 12/ In. pmuon al In. court In Indh whon I,~an.I.4.IIng nn lnlrlnglmant of In. cqulviltnr Right undo! In. Indian Dorvstmllfon wnn Iuqlrd la lndin, III: Inm-.n Canstiluliarl mam. thll the Iesmttlans, mn In within the Innns plescrrbed, must he msonnnu m1 so an cum! would be undcrl -my to derldt on It: Ivlsanlbhmss. But, with mean! In M mu, wh-rI lnmngtmlnl of In. Right ol Inudaln of spuch .n.I Ixphssfon Is nlleved. the stone alme cowl‘: Inquiry V5 Ilmltnd to In. Izutrllnn whethcr In. Impuynld Ilw cvmu wIInIn In. mall I,» In. pumlflnd rufrfcflnnx. Sn, rm ..I.InnI., II In. Immlflnld law, In nun .n. subsllncl, ls . law nlnflnv Io till sunI.m Imlmonted undo! In. p-IwnIIn.-a rvillicrinns found In I:I1fl{?Hn In- uu-mn whnlltu II I. rnmnnblu doll’ not .n-I.‘ In. I-w . Monuvu, by El I2; of m 4, II I; naI . lrcund Imn.II.ng. am In. nsmcllon docs nntrvlaft in am ol In. In.IIm woerfiod In an 10fl)(:I for mum: . can am». In. I:mI.cIIan al In.I .m-II. (sun... Sinqh V nI.nI..- 5..., IzIJnhare al p m vmuld In VI 1. pm II am-Imer my. in l1ZIlbl M In. Constmlllon uxpmnly pvvlllblk‘ In. qlluflonlrlg of In. nlldlty U, lny In on In. amundrnalsuch . I... 'Impan.1 rI.1lIlctlan.I .. .r. rmnllamd In .n IaI2) ol In. r..ImI Cansllnman Inn Xhosa Iislrlcfloni won not .I..In.a nccunI1 or umI.nI by Pafllamml nu In. pwpom momiorvld W! .n 1lI(Z)2 Is pp v Plrlm cnmnsmmymw 517 car 2:5; u fallow: mu m. posman al tho win undnl aur amsmuunn Is not as rm us me posmon of ma pm: mm» M: /mum cmumven -nu man so when wmmnd to ma palltlon ol the ans: In Enyllnd ar tin Llnlttd sum uIAmIItca. This, olcoursn, moans mat rm mam. cans and m. Privy owner: can ou.m..m mm: v A-G ofAmFqI4I and Emma. 5 On‘ mm on by nal be dlscuaxed. In same so an m mam by wnu mmm CJ my In cmmnmn of sun. of Korantan v ammmun of m. Fcdamtinn 1:! Many: and rum Abdul Rnhmln Puma Am. at a :53 co( m. mm n. ma wu mm mu Oonlflluflon ls primarily to bu lnllrprulnd «man In awn ram wnlls mu not In um am at mroqru dawn hum ulnar cnunmus such as am: Imam, mu unmu sxms niflmurina or Aunt:/in mmnm al the -pnllcnton gr mi: -ppmcn when Intermeclnn our Federal Conrllrulron -we to M found In Lon Koo! Clmon v Guvcrnmem umaraym at p my :0! 1A mm» it our Kn sun L Or: 5! p 113 my 25 c. Indnd m. n n pom: wll mogmm ma .ppu..1 u, an Privy Council (An Lard nzaeum; In Adlvbenro v Aklntuln .1 :2 1:.‘ (emphasxs added). Until our Federal Court overrmes Punq Chan Choon, as a matter av snare decrsrs, all calms in «his country are buund by Punq chm chnon. Regrenalfly m this case. Veamed L>ounse\ 35 K. for min ins Appellants and Rsspandems am not rater the Ieamed HC Judge In Pung Chen Choon 34. smrssciion 4(4) HRCMA pmvldes as lnHow: ‘For we Imnson WMRCMAJ, nmm mu 5. pm: In mom] in IN Qxtvnt inn it I: noflnconxlstunl mm {sq " isnipnasis added). 35. The isarnea HC Judge had relied on s 4(4) HRCMA to appiy UDHR in INS case, The Maiorily Comm is of me View that the learned HC Judge nsd cummilled an error oi law by appiying s 444) HRCMA io iuslfly ins invocaliun or UDHR in inis case i4"- Appaallblo Error) The reasons «or unis decision fife as luHows: [1] s 4(4) HRCMA only suws ‘regard or consideration M UDHR «or me purpose or HRCMA In the exisni mai such a consideration of UDHR is not Inconsistent with me FC, seciion 444; HRCMA has nai pravided for UDHR |a be isgany binding per sq in «ms muntry. UDHR is cnly enimoeanla in this oounlry ‘N Parhamenl has expressly pmwiea Ifl an Act of Paniamenl ihai UDHR is iegany binding The Maiunly Comm refers In in F105 iudgmenl In Knn Foods snhwnlz Holdlnq Gmhfl v Pnndaflar Cap Dagangan [2015] 11 MLJ 702, at [23] and [24]. as follows. “[221 Malaysia Is a wnsiory la in. mi»-s Avrumnnt on 1.1.1925. rn. hllnwlny cases nan docldod ms: nu If ml-ysu is bound by - mm In public Mlornlllnnal rm, such . army 1. .,nIy -nrmum. In M rs’-" """"=l»-I Ilvr Ifour P-rmmlm ms pnsnd Ingtsman to give men In such . new m in tn. mam: Court tn! 0! am Blqi a. Dr! -1 Kprnjun maul Snrawak L mothur appeal mm] A MLJ 297, at panagmpn van. mus sn.nn=c./ In In III": was]. amum as fallow: - was] on ma um whnlhnr mu court should use vnmnnuunau nonnrunnoaroa In mu uunmr ta Int-rpm IN: 5 and 13 :1! m. rum: Cansmmlan Hun anly this m any. Inmnauonu mum do not Ioml nan ar our law, unlus mm pnmsrons um bun Incorpwav-.1 mtn our raw V (emuhasm adrisd). 42) /77 N! Am sun v mum. srmna or Mnmmod Am law] 5 Mu :15, M pavagmans JIZ 35 and 3741, 1-wlwi sum. mu held In mu cam auppm u !n!lnws— ‘I301 Blfore promutny to discuss tn. lssuu, wn would an In mnn m snml gm 1 discussions nnoul czmw. csmw wu mama by the General Asmnnry or en. Urmod mmons rn ma Md um. Into /um. In m1. 1: 1. . landmark lnmrnntlannl ngrnmlnk mu mmns Mnclphs 1:! human nuns and evuaunr for womvn around my world. As or :7 Amu mu, 1:: sum nm nllll-d w :c¢t:Iod¢orruli. /35; Mlllyri is . siynnmy 1.; CEDAWMM rutmodfun ms [37] In our consldend opmron, csmw am no! my. mu lama mm In Mnlayxh bccaun Hm sun I: not nnnm Into inyIoc1ll9!IsIIIlon [as] In llmoucic-I mm, mu Ipnliu 'on on-nzemnuannr legal sylkrnu is alien explnlned In terms olme mwclnnes uf tncanamuon (or mrmllml and lnrvrlorm-doll (a> musn-;, me] Amnmg In the daolrms ul rnwmaranon‘ mlsmatmnal raw rs srmpry lwo cumpununls al mgr. body 5/ know/adg: ca/(ad law Law is seen as a Jmqfis entity at which /ntomalmnal and munmrpa! vsrsrona am mm/y Damculal manrfeslal/on A /udvs ca/I dummy . mummuu! my Anvnhd my mntlamcls an mlemalmrlal raw benxusv, m sum: mm. the latter rs my to pm/sr! M71 In. doctrine nl ttlnxfonn-Eon, an m. ulllu nnna, hnldk tn-1 mu m sysnnu or Im, Inlnmnllon-I law and nmnmpar raw, an cum;-rmty nvirala. A nu. or :n2.n..uunar law can only bosom! pm or municiphl my if .n.: ..:..n it is trunslwmid inla rnuni p.: 1... by the mm: or Ion! Ieqfsmion (Bee Dlnah She/lan(EI1)y lnlemallona! Law In Domain: Legal System /HCDWDIEIIDII. Trurvslomlanan and P-:sun:»an(0x1un1 L/mvanfly F1955, 2017)‘ Bmwnhe‘ I, Pflnclp/es of Vnlsmalrmal Law,.?M Ea, mam. 1996, chm; [411 The pr-nice In Malaysia mu. mqua to Me npntlcamu. of lnlemfllonll rm 1: when/ly um um: n ma: In Britain, mm-/y, rm mcmm pamsm an truly-mnklng cnpaclry mm: the pom: to we ellect anmuttcllly ru-ls mm panmmm. For - may In D: up-mm In u.:.y:r., mmrm, u mqulns I-glslnion bypuflnmonl “ Yeflwlvisrx mud). and (3; 1». judgmnnk of Snunklr .I 1.. n. mm was) In um um. coun use af Pub": Proseculur v Nlrunvnn Sookmvll 4 Ovs[1W7I2 MLJ1I70,al1U5— ‘A: In um, Am'cIu 75(1) 12/ m. M: ysiln cam.-mug" mm“ m rmur Parliament wlm m. compmnc. to mac! leglsllllwv for tho nu-nos. allrluzluncnllnu tmflos. -an-mm a. zamnnrlnna human who Fadurntian and Any om: :aunfl1 or my decision ol my Innemntionnl amlnlrnlon or whirl! the mmnm ls . .......:m. Sn am. . Gommntlon 5... ram: mm mm. In :4. ysrn, Parflamonl mun mu . law ta )3 um um 17.. c..m.g. by A. An! .5 any man sxamnls and the rmpmabnn of (he Geneva Cwwenlron an we Temmnal Sea am an Comryuuus lens may by In: Emergency (Euanlml Powers) o.a....a..o.. No 7 av mes». srromsr No Malaysian smut: has bun cm to an to snow ma. Mm: 11 7...: blcnml pm of u...y:.... L..... 1.. Im 17.. o..::.....:. ,2... citnd stops .. Article 1: my me lnulsflble Inference masl be 17...: Arllclc u was notlntmdui to bu lmporlod mu m: cnunlry V renwms... med}. R4] Hand an an now am, /clrmor .11.. lo 17.. mu-s Agrnomcnk .....m n an n. xhawn n... we ‘mu-s Agrnmnnl ms been Vemsrand by u... ;=...r....-... is par! of our .......mpar law. 4.. example or me transfomuuon oi nu. Farts Cunwrmon in. m. Fruhctrun al ....:...-.1... Pmp-rly 17.‘ zamm ....1 .....-:.¢ 1: Stockholm on 44.7.1957 rpm. Convention) um mtps Aureemenl rm our Mllaysrnn law Is 7.. : 1412) rm (wen Pfuv/dos Mal Amer. say: ollhc mm ca..u..ua.. and mm we 0! m. wrs Aar-......: mu uaply far u.. pumase of 4-I-rmln-‘no whom-r . «m .....u ls . well-known mm mark or omamrs-1" (emphasis added); 12) HRCMA. Includmg ils 5 Am), dos nu| pmwde (ha| me exercxse ol the Mwmstefs msuenonary power under 5 7(1) PPFA ws sumac! to UDHR. and m D. Qrcunds for H0‘: Decision 12 According to me Gmunds 01 Judgment ior me HC's Decision (eon. among others - (1) (2) (3) (4) (5! paragraph 12 ($0.! - ine Bonk oflared an piiernniive View inai cnrisiraniiy noes nei oppose homoaexuahly, paragraphs 17 to 19. 23 and 33 GOJ — me pupiicaiien of me Book was nor iikeiy io be preiudiciai In pupiip eroer. since ine pupiicaiion af me Back in September 2013, inere was rie unlnward lncldem whicn arose irern the Book: peraigrapn 21 GOJ — inere was no evieenoe oi haw rnany copies oi irie Book vied been prinledi pupiisneo or cirauiaieo were me Bari: paragraph 27 GUJ - me response ey nierripers nf eeeiery reiarred in by me 1-" Appeiianl could noi be aooeplsd |o represeni an accepted View in reoeni rirnes er eiiher rigni or wreng by right-lhinkmg rrrerripers atscciety as whale: paragraph 25 em - mere was no evidence inai irie views oi diriareni religious and eiverae cultural segrnenis oi sacisly had been ieken inio consideration by ins 1-l Appeiiani. At most ine incieences reierreo In W \ne 1-‘ Amzeiiani represent uie views of a Iirniieo group at persons oi a pariiouiar re on wnicn in no way represenis me Maiaysien sociely as e wnoie; (3) are above aeereron 1s supporled by me Ccurt at Aupea\'s Judgmen Snpakal Efnklll, at [57], as vauaws — “I511 As mnnts mu mm of Imrrmronu law sr.rmn.rs being -ppuunle. mu tho Ieqlumre expecznuerrs or m lpntflnnts rrr rm: ream lhe Ilnwtlnyt 9! mo lumld Judy: m tunnel. socrrerr 4 Imvoml rniruly rIquIrI.I our courts In nm npnrd to mom) m are nmcns or rrrmpnuuon mu In rm lbnncn cl r.-Ion! consllnmonll pmvrsrerrs or [F0]. me rm; ol mm rrppuls nqulrv ms caurl m nm rvglrd tn cxpmu cons-tlnmnnnl pmvmarrs In rm Iorm al nrls. 10, nm: 5. mm L: no crmrpamng nnd fa dincfly apply Inbomaflona! raw rukr re suppltnnnt our domusllc‘ Imwlslvns ' (smpnasrs added). L. s uld court con -r mmers omar than Genenl M lm sinn Bank? 35 The 3 Grounds (Ban)cor1L:emadIhs exrsrsrrce ailhe L1kehhaod In Prqudlce Moml1|y/Pubhc order/Puburc lnterssl. As explained In Mohd Faixal, me 3 Gmum1s(Ean)d1d no: concern acruax prejudice Kc muraliiy, public amsr and public interest. Acmrarnguy, me Majonty Coram rs 0! me vrew mar the vourmrg consraersuorrs are nor relevant far (he eoun |o decide on lhe exrsoznee or nan- ex1s\eI1oe at me Lrkewreaa to wreruaroe Morality/Fubhc Older/Pubhc Imeresr: (1; me lac! mar cor a Denud 01 more lhan 7 years mom seprember 2013 rpemrcsnorr or me Bock) urml 17.11 2020 [me dale cl me A) 37 as. Gazelle Noxmcaiian (Bari)l, mere was no untoward Incident which had the Book’: Pubiiualion/Sal2/Circulation/Possession, arisen tram (2) there was nu evidence regarding how many copies 01 me Book nad been published, soid, circulated and possessed by Malaysians, (3) the Apneiianis did not adduixz any view andlur response from dmereni reiigiuus and culiurai groups at our society regarding the Book: and (4) Dr Wan’: Expert opinion; and ndi adducs any axpsrfs View to rebut Dr. (5) me Apneiianis Wan‘: Exparl opinion. K5 the learned HC Judge had taken into account irrelevant matters as E’/Vptairled in Ihe above subparagraphs 3611) to (5) In her Ladyshids exercise or discretion In aiiaw me Judiaiai Review Apphcation (s'- Appulabln Error). the 5'" Appealabie Ermr is a ground (or appeiiais intervention in this case. Even if it is assumed that the oansidaraiions stated in me above sub-paragrapns 35(1) tn (5) are iaievam in ' uase, ma Majority Coram has nu nesiuiion to decide that sucn considerations do not disabuse a raasonaiaia Minister in the position at the 1" Appeuani ironi being taiisiied that the Genera! Message/Impression (am) has the potemiat to cause the Likelihood la Preiudioe Muralily/Pubhc Order/Public Incerasi in ulher wards, no1wl|hs(andlng me «set lnsl me 1-‘ Appellant ma nul consluer me matters slated m ms above sub-paragraphs 36(1) la (sl, s reasunable Mlmslel ln me posllinrl oHhe1"AppallanIwouId sllll be ssllstled Ihal the General Messagellmpresslun (Book) has me polenllal to cause me Llkellnood lo Preluuice Muralllyll=ubllc Order/Fubllc lnleresl. M. Whither Minlglar ls mg a by Anlclu. in and am Fc to niva n rigm ol figgrillg Iuinm making ihn MinisInr's Dncislon 39 The Mslorlty Coram wlH new conslder me quesllorl of wnemer me Mlnlsler ls required by males 5(1) and all) rc lo give a ngm or hearing lo any person who , (1; i rmeresled m a pubhcaticn, and (2; has a legmmale expeclaliorl lfl Iespsct our-e publication [Innr-and Farllas (Publlmlonn - nelure me Mlnlslefs Declslorl is made under s 7(1) FPPA 40. Section las PPPA slsles as lollaws: m pun». who nu burl wlntod . mm orwml: undo! ml: Acuhallbq yivnn .n Dpparlunlly la in humbolon . docman 10 mm or suspund men mm or p-ml: L1 mm undo! subsecflon an). 612) or mm. as the em mlybo' lemphasls added). 41. According la EFIGIK Ahmad Hanlr bin Hambaly, the learned Serliur Federal counsel who represenls the Appellanls in ‘nus Appeal. a comparison between belween s 1(1) PPPA on the one pan and ss 7(3) and 135 PPPA on lhe otner part. shows lne Inlenllorl ol Parliament in exclude a nghl ai healing balms the Minister examlsss his discretion to ban a publication under 5 7(1) PFFA. 42 Tne Malenly Cmam is of me lellewlng VIEW‘ (ll ii tne legislature has provided lor an exercise of sxecullve dlscrellen In a statute (statute the legislature nas lhe prerogallvs lo exclude a ngnl oi hsanng in the Slalule belore tne executive decision is made‘ unless Parliament nas excluded a right or hearing VI tne statute, ellner expressly D! by necessary implication tn the statute. a right oi nearing IS implied by our case law. This is clear lmm the lolltwnng judgment oi Rala Allan Shah FJ (as nis Malesly than was] in tne Federal Conn case of lmua Pulgarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Selig [1917]2 MLJ152‘at15A— -in my opinion, in. nu. ofnalmallustlct tnal no man may a. zarldamnld unheard should -pply tn wiry clu wnuu nn Indlvlttunl I: mus-ly zlhetud by In ntmlnlx-tnllvt Milan no niatm wmlrler It Is lahtflod '/ualelar, ‘it-mi. iudie -, or "lt'Iminislntiw" or wnntnu ur not in. uubllnfi slum. .n.l... pm-/Islarl Int . hurlng." (emphasis added): t2) an example alPar1lamerlI’s exclusion of the rlghl of hearing in a statute is demonstrated in tna judgment atlne Federal Coun .4 in xKdhDRVnUIUDF7s1lanCA wane Sum ...n.. will he used M mm in. nllnlnnllly sun; dun-mm n. .nune mu dehvered by sm Norma Yaanob FCJ (as she men was) m Mordln H] znk-nu (mnbaunn Kolul Poll: Knlanlan) A And. v Mohd Noov Abduflah [2004] 2 cm 777‘ at 754‘ as fullows s “R-ndlnq m. pmvlxlans ul [Polrcl (Conduct and Dlxclnllnel (Junior pouoe Dmcers and conmms) Rlvulltluns mo) rn /as um.-ry. lsee no mqutnmon: mu emidta mu nxpandcnt 1:: ha lnformtd ol the oounouny or Mm Ming dlsmlssnd o. ndumd In ....n In an vuvl n. In oonwened 9! my or an. enmu pflhmd Janina: n:.n In nu»... ma show em. me. or mo. la we start of mo disciplinary nnqulry. man I: no provision impoxfrvg a similar oonoauon at man pmenm by nu. 15(1) of nu ma Realthlvonr. Sine: um um: R-gmonons nnpm. no duly an the 1:: Appcl/ant to .nro.vn m. ruponfltnt :2 the urn nppommlly nf rim Inlulilrood or hrs omnrou: o. nductlon In nnk, ma 1sxapp-mmunno:bo .. mhnvu o-pnwo mo nwormm or any nroeemm. mmoss .. m... rlrmul bl nny Drum of duty wnuv none ulsts In raw." (emphasis added), and (3) as correctly submllled by Encwk Ahmad How, a mmpanscn between s 711) FFPA [wmon does um provide [or a dgm d1 heanng on Vnleresled Parties |PubhcaIiun)] on me one hand and ss my and was PPPA(whvch have expresswy convened a right ov hearing on Incoresasd Famas (Puhlncamonn on me mher hand. reveals Ihe nnenuon or we legislature to exdude a ngm ov hearing tar Interested Parties (Puh\ical\on) bevme the Munster makas a decwswon pursuant to s 1(1) FPPA .5 (Farliamnnfs Exclusion of Right av Hearing [socuon 7(1) PPPA]) 4:5. The Mammy Coram has not overlooked me Mlawmg ‘augment of Abu Bakar Jals .IcA (as he then was) m lsllmlr: Ronalssancn From [2020] 5 ML.) 399. a [27] to [29]. [31]. [M]. [39]. [M] to [46]. [49], [so] and [31]. ‘[271 AM! mmmna me Issue: r-Ind, m would uy mu: an nnly twa impamnl paints, mm ... mu fnnus Ind Mamlnm mat would » sumcfem on ollecllvely delecmme um. um (alts m.u..s»an 12s] Fin: I: m. .ma...:.u. rm um mm. m. Nlgh com um um nsnondunl most In zvold m. Luuu mu nu 7.-pamm nu-.1 to zamplr wvth tn. onto! or wllscavlry mad- by the man Cnurl Itulf my n :5 undispllredllval becnuse olme am aldiscavuy, Ml am:/m Ir enlltlad to m. JnkIm’s lawns And me rucammund-Illons mu vommultx or m. Publlallrrm Md aunnl: rm Conmzl Dlvlslon. um I: also no dlsm. my part of the .IlkIm's Mporls Ind me recommtnduions ma cammonls olllre Publfcnflon and Qurnrm: rm Control Dlvlsflon wan rm/tr pmvfdld to m: Iwullant. And in unit»! bu dupulod mu: m aumny ml--/Irv! documlntx blcluu m. rupondtm rm: rvlitd on m. sum to Issut m. omon 2!!-cling khl Duhllcnllonx 511 sum: In mind me above auouflon, we m «I the 0Dtm‘un mu m. ruxporrdlnfil -mm. of dlscrudton cannot be «.1. rm. :. bacnun m. nlpondim Mind to snow the ncommendntlons um comments of u.. Publlcuion ...a aurinlc rm Contra! nmmn, nut to menflon parloftm rlpons as ny Jnknn. As Inalmea nnese comments Ind reemnmenunuans wan llkm Into lcoounl by 29:. nenzonaen: won me were win luuod. And 1: clnnat n. avor-umpluxlsld mu Nlyh Cour! nllowod Ina drscovory ol mm commlms Ind nenmmandltlons for the -pp-Ir-n2. vn as paint»: oul, Inn - MN not Pmvldvd lo we -pp-4:-nx by m. mpana-nz rm hllun Ia xhow mm hog: me question whumuriris WI in ms um mm Mar Inc same mm Iaknn fnla account ny Mt :-mnaonr mm Issumv mu ordors. 1: also ms me quosuon wmmu mu sun. is avun nn-mm to In consrdnnd. sun mun slriaus is tin susnician um um. dacumlnu flu not Ixisk .1 nu rne sum em: olmls nmunus In 3071044: doubt nherhel Morn was a ru! mmso cl dlrcnllnrv by me respondnnl ns riquimd byLv s.n,, 5:11 And Wadmsbury Corp ms) w m al 2n. 1/law am we mu. mending um nan. Wofluzflon 9! an ducumlnts main menu me app“: to p- ll/awed, nu /us by we run IN: is . nrlnu: fuuv wnizh was not naunma .: nu by um um. Court and me mspomlunt (:9! Nonelnlless, we could no nlmde m Inumel lmpofllnr porn: ulcurmntlon mu 1: malarial In cane/usryery alsposrng tn- tnpnl, without mu 71006 La Iddrvu nu ma rum ralud. ms runes to me suhmlsslcm ngnrdlng en. nghl to bc ht rd bclon Me responaenvs omels were Ixsuect As lndlcttod, mm is um nu arspum rm: war was nez mama no mo appeunnn 144] n.... ;. nu such pmvision in (ppm. rn...:e.. n. comlny to Is decision, the Fndornl Court wu canfimny iuelfvu me mmmy provision u narrated above. me Federal Cami Mon am not an/Imaku e ru//nu afvflnoralapvlfcallnn mar Ilme ls rm nun: ol n..nn,, wIIIn mu nm /5 not rmod as . pmcedunl mqulnm-nr. In rm without such Itllukcry ccmshlnus seen In Lee Kew snnq, . rlnmalnurrng n . awe n and rummum: mm mu would be accorded (see 1... Yak Sung .. Sumlrlnjayn Puimldmltlrv Pundldlkln 5. Altar [1996] 1 ML] 251; [46] Fumm. the right of nurvna I: always available and unlhrinnd w.-mom Nullirmy it ta ta mm In any ummy provisions. rm Fodural cow! was char an this principle In Kelua Pemnnh Kasum v No Kwan Sena 119771 zmu 152 . my )1; Imilntud um I: no dispula mu m. rlsporrdonl and ..m.:.. any right «mm... In m. .p...u.... 5...... Issuing the nrdars. Tnls Hqnx mm mm m... vlvan Iollowma tn- ducltlun mm. Tmnlbn, mm nsnoct ma man cum‘! crud In ;a»....:..., L.. K... s..., ...u not Iollowlny Ha Kwan Sum 1491 Following the -have, what should have 5.... done by 2». nwcnaanr 75 no viva ma rum .1 many lo the -weum. Am. this Is plvvldnd mm. mpemm tons/Hurt mmls ma by the -pmllnm, only an... would Um ..q..m...om 1;! ...x....: I-mice be mum [501 Mrs: «mm: In mm fr 2». Iar!lPPPA1Itulfdou not ny um . riyhl 0/ hearing shuuld bu utlmiod. rm right or n ulna can be uxcludud .5 sun In 5 59 of the Immigrlnan Act nsws: pm JP smners. am since ms was nal the use far 1». an, M: appouam mun D1 gmn mu nan: ornnnnv. [51] Bind a. .11.». ........: nfmv:-Id, with ...,,.c:, m. :..mm mm Caufl lady: snarl on two mm»... mm, 1.. mp... or ma non! for ma r-mun-m a. show m. rolovanl dccumonls and also In mp-er olihe mod to am mo nun: 94 h mg m tin .,...u...z (emphasis added) A5. 46 o. 47. Wnh rsspacl, me Malorily Coram is or me lallawrng oplnlun regardlng Islamic mnaluanca Frnrll: 11) in lslarnlc Rcnnlisancn Front‘ lns Minis\er an: no: comply wlln a pnnr dlsoovery order of the mgr. cam, on lrns ground alone, me M lslsfs Dsclsiun under s my FPPA should be quashed, and 12) learned counsel lrl Imrnlc Ronaissancs From did nol draw me courrs allenllon la Parllarnenvs Excluslon of Rignl cl Hearlng [Sectlan 7(1) PPPA] In View of Parliamerlfs excluslan or Rlghl of Hearlng [Sec1ll:lrl my PPPA] (please refer in the above paragraph 42), the learned HC Judge had erred ln dscldlng lnal ms Responuenls had a mrlstllullonal fight in be heard before the Earl wa: lssued by the 1‘ Appellant (E“ Appialable ENVY). ulg Minister nlvo ronnn for Han? The Gazette Nallncallan (Earl) had expressly provlded lor lne 3 Grounds (Ban) Furlnerrnore, MHA‘s Ieller aalaa 30.12.2020 In the 1" Respcndem had glven me 1-‘ Appellanrs reasons rm lne Ban. Acoordlngly. me learned HCJ had oonlrnmaa a plan error ouacl by denidlng lnal me 1“ Appellant am not pmvlde any reason la: the Bal1|7"' Appeslabla Error) Migfig Decision The Majomy coranl is unable to mid lnal — AB m me1"AppeIlanlhad oammmea any error of law regirdlng the Ban. ¢2) there was pmcedumx wmpropnely commmed m respem afths v’ Anpsuws wssuanca al me Bun [man Is no‘ ngm to be heard under 5 my PPPA » pvease refer co ms shove paragraph 42] (3) me Ean was \rva\mna\ m me same man no usasoname Mxmsler wamd have imam me aan, arm ms Ban was so dIsprL7pur1\ona(eIh2I| me mun shuuld xssue a csmomn mderlc quash the Ban (4) In vsew ov me 1" to 7" Appealame Ennis. me Majmnty Cumm n mnwamea lu - 41) allow This Appeax, and (2) sex aswde ma HC‘s Dacvsinn‘ and (3) order ma Rexpendenls to pay to ma Appellants costs m 2 mm 0! RM15.0UU on here and new DATE: 11: DECEMBER 2023 woue KIAN KHZONG Judge coun av Appgax, Malayua an (5) (7) (8) (9) paragraph 29 GOJ ~ there was no support for the 1" Appellarlfs avermsnl that humasaxuallly IS a placflue DI eullure which is ndl accepted by me enlire society cl Malaysia and is an ‘aliens’ in all me religions H1 lms cdunny. The Respondenls had provided an expert opinion by Dr. wan wel Hslen, an Adlurm Lecturer (Religion and PMOSDDHYD at Meihudisl College, Kuala Lumpur (D7. Wall‘! Expm Oplnlon). The 1" Appellnnl did ncl adduce any expert evidence id rebut Dr. Wan‘: Expert opinion, paragraph 31 504 » ma HG relied on a ludgmenl ol lhe Indian Supveme Court in N. Radhakrilhnan @ ludluxrlalinnn Vnreniekal v Union ol India [2o1s17 MLJ (Madras Law Journal) 628 (RndhIkrlshnnn's Can) wlilcn decided an me appllcallorl at Arllcle 19(2) el Ihe Indian canslildadn llc), paragraph 32 ecu . there must be an avidenaal basis for the1"AppelIan\'sjus|iflcal.icn dime Ban; paragraph 33 cos - me I" Appellanl had "In lac! dissected significant excerpts“ of me Bank said to he likely in be prejudi all in public order, moraliiy and public interest. such an approach was nol an objecllve assusnnenl. The lexls VI Ihe Book wnlcn gave ednlexl in me passages in me Bock relerred \u by lne 1"AppeHanL had been ommsd by me 1-‘ Appellant. The passages In ma Book ieraned in by me 1-‘ Appellanl were nol ‘sfgniiicanf because ins nassages weve contained in 42 am oi 226 pages dime Book; For me Appellants: For the Respanuenrs Ennik Ahmad Hamr om Hambaly @ Arm (Sem‘oI Federal Counsel) 5 Enclk Mohammad Ss/lshud-1m bin Md. All (Federal Counsel) (Attornsy—GsneraI Chambers. Puma/aya) Encrk Edmund son Tai Soon A Enork Mlcnael Chsah Em T/an (Msssu AmerBON) (to) paragraphs 34 and as GOJ — by vlflue ul Articles 5(1) and am at the Federal Coristlfullorl (Fct. the Respondents have a constitutional rlghl to be heard belore the Earl was imposed by the 1"Appel|an|; (11) paragraph 31 GOJ —the learned Hc Jtmpe relied on. among others, the Calm v1 Al-weal's declstpri in Islamic Ronallunla Front and v the Mlnmor of Home Alfulrs [2020] 5 MLJ 399 to arrive at the HC‘s Decision; (12) paragraph 38 GOJ — by Virtue at! the claetnne at legitimate expectation, the Respondents had a right tp pa heard palore the sari was imposed by the 1" Appellant. Fundamental llperttes guaranteed in Articles 5 in la FC encompass human nghls principles oarttalrieu tn the universal Declaration al Human Rights (|JDHRj read with 3 4(4) oi the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 itinerant (13) paragraph 40 GOJ - as the Respondents were not given a nght to he heard batons the imposition ol the Ban, the Earl was “lrldefenslb/5'. and my pamgraphs 41 In 43 GOJ - ms1" Appellant did not give any reason (or the Ban. E Inttas 13 The tplltwvlng questions will be decided in ihts Maionty Judgment; (1) can me sour! review me nieriis ei ine exercise of me Minisier of Horne Affairs‘ (Minmeri uisipreiipnary pawsr under s 7(ii PPPA no pvpnipii any “publicaliari” (defined wiueiy in s 2 PPPA) iuilnieuws Dol:lsiulI)"'i (2; ii the court can mwsw me meme at me Minieiers Decision, what is me appiicame new In this regard - (pi wneinsr me ocurl can reiy on e (ii Indian ceees on ireenon. ovepeecn which ere based an Article 1912) ic; and (Ii) UDHR and s 4(4) HRCMA - in review me Miriisvers Decision: (is) wneiner ine Minisier is requireu io cunsider me ipnpwing nianers before making me Minisiers Decision - iii me vac: lllal no untoward insiasnc has arisen pin 01 the priming. sale. pircuieiipn and possession 01 the pupiicaiinn: iii) me number pr eppies of me pubilcation wiiien nee been published, spldi c cuiaied and Possessed by Malaysllns: me View anaier response by Meiaysian society or any pen merepv |o me publimlion, ii any; and iiv) any expert opinion regarding me pubiicsiion and ii there is an expert view an rne puniicsiion (in Expert Opinion), is me Minisisr obhged to pmcure anumsr experl up ion In suppun nr ism ms 1" Expert OPINION. 13) wnsinei ins Minisrer is required by Aniciss 5(1) and an) FC 1»: give a ngiii at nearing In any person who - (H) is “i'mersstsd' in a publication, and (b) nss a isg-iirriaie expectation wiin regard to the publica on neiars iris Minister's Dacision is made This issue emails 2 comparison between s 7(1) FPPA an ins one hand and ss 7(3) and in PPPA on the other nan nd (4; ma me Minislar give» any reason ioi ms Minisrers Decision’! GROUNDS FOR MAJORITY DECISION F. wriemg; 9g 3 ggn rlvilw nrnrics nil Mrnimrs Decision 14. We reproduce beiaw Articles «(aim 5(1), BU), ID(l)(a). (zxai FCV the ueiiniiinri ol "pub/lcsllan" In s 2 PPPA and s 7 PFPA ‘E A.-rim 4 £2’; rm vllldlry nllny Inw smu narba quulionod an the ymund um — 1») it imposes mn .-mmam n m mcntlnrmd in Article um; but man resmcrlons wee: not deemed necesslry or upedlenl ny Pmllmenl for mu purposes mumomd /n mnuwcn Arivds 5 uwty arm p-mm m we PM-sun um: 50 ac;-mu: of ms M. or pusm/ may mo in lceordlncl wim law Amde 9 Emuury 0/ All persons ue equu befurv rm law And unmed to m -«um pm:-c1/an emu raw mm 117 Fnodam alspucn‘ assembly and amaanon (U Sub]-ct no Claus-s I2). ta). 13»; am: W — rs; -wry =/mun has In rvqm m Incdorn al Jpancn ma axpmsslan, :2; " Parflam-nrmly bylawimmuv (5) on 1». ngm; canlenrd by puIgIlph(I}o." CI:-4:: m, such nsmcflons u n deems necesslry ar median: In the Interest ul the secufllv at me roamuon at any but mmor, M-ndvy NI-rllons wm: olhnr co-umtu. Public 1314-! m mnury And nmrcuom dnslgnad to mm: the prlvlltgos of Puflamum of army lcglshltvn Assembly or to pmvm nouns: com-mm ul coufl. delnmalron, or men-mm to my alum. E .r 2 “Dahlia-tian” Include: 7 la! a Dummenl, newspapsn book anapsnoa/caa

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-01(A)-156-03/2022

PERAYU 1. ) Menteri Dalam Negeri 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia RESPONDEN 1. ) CHONG TON SIN 2. ) NGEO BOON LIN

The following questions will be decided in this Majority Judgment:(1) can the court review the merits of the exercise of the Minister of Home Affairs’ (Minister) discretionary power under s 7(1) PPPA to prohibit any “publication” (defined widely in s 2 PPPA) (Minister’s Decision)?; (2) if the court can review the merits of the Minister’s Decision, what is the applicable test? In this regard -(a) whether the court can rely on - (i) Indian cases on freedom of speech which are based on Article 19(2) IC; and(ii) UDHR and s 4(4) HRCMA - to review the Minister’s Decision;(b) whether the Minister is required to consider the following matters before making the Minister’s Decision -(i) the fact that no untoward incident has arisen out of the printing, sale, circulation and possession of the publication;(ii) the number of copies of the publication which has been published, sold, circulated and possessed by Malaysians;(iii) the view and/or response by Malaysian society or any part thereof to the publication, if any; and(iv) any expert opinion regarding the publication and if there is an expert view on the publication (1st Expert Opinion), is the Minister obliged to procure another expert opinion to support or rebut the 1st Expert Opinion?;(3) whether the Minister is required by Articles 5(1) and 8(1) FC to give a right of hearing to any person who -(a) is “interested” in a publication; and(b) has a legitimate expectation with regard to the publicationbefore the Minister’s Decision is made. This issue entails a comparison between s 7(1) PPPA on the one hand and ss 7(3) and 13B PPPA on the other hand; and(4) did the Minister give any reason for the Minister’s Decision?

19/12/2023

YA Datuk Wong Kian KheongKorumYA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji NawawiYA Dato' Gunalan A/L MuniandyYA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0d61a7cc-981f-479d-90a4-5eded886a708&Inline=true

19/12/2023 15:12:23 W-01(A)-156-03/2022 Kand. 29 S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N zKdhDRYnUeQpF7e2IanCA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w—u1(1x)—15e—u3/2022 Kand. 29 19/12/2013 .s;.z-2. m me count or man. or muwsu w=.=su.4rs Junlsulcrlom CIVILAPPEALN -01A sn mm asrwzsu . MENVERI mum NEGERI 2. xznuum MALAYSIA AFPELLANI3 AND 1. cnoms YON sm (mus No: uoszz-a1-555!) |Trad\ng as Gevukbvdaya s...s......e. Bushes: Regwsmlbn Nu 19:m3oan3751aoae7o41o-Du 2. NGEO anon LIN {Umlsd s......:u¢Amma Passporl No’ 5a722aa7e) Rzswounzuvs mm >4. hCnur\u1Ma\a amKua\2 Lum . FedamlTemIn Aggflau and Sana! Puwarx Dwvwan wax... Rewsw Agghnznlxon Nu wA.2s.sg2/232. semen 1. crmg Tan s... mm Na 430322-o1-5551; |TradIm as Gerskbuduya Emernnss s......ass nss..muo.. No 199103030375 umnaromyml 2 Ng-0 Emu L... (Unned 5.3.2; numenm wmpcn Nu 597225373) .. Apvlbanls And Mantel! Dahm New 2 »<...,m Mahyma . . Defendants] coluul: AIIZAH HAJI NAWAWI. JCA GUNALAN AIL MUNIANDV. JCA wows KIAN KHEONG. JCA . A. 6. GROUNDS FOR MAJORITV JUDGNIENI nuoducxlon On 25 9.202: - 11) my veamett s\sIer, Azrzan Hap Nawawx JCA, and I (mawuy Coram) had allwwed mnlslon): and urns appea\ witn wsls (Maiorily (2) my learned brother, Gunalan all Mumandy .t<:A. had given a dlssenflng epimon ms tuugntenz [Majority Judgmtntj pmwtes the reasons (or me Maturity Decwsion and a were u! tne Matorily Judgmenl nee bsen given to Guna\an all Muniandy JCA. Background The nrst reebondent <1" Respond-nt) is the we pmpnetuv at a business named “Gerakbudayi EnIsrWrse' wmch pumisns and mstnbutes books. The second respondent (2'-5 Rnpcndnnl) wrote a book entitled ‘Gay is OKJ A Christian Perspeenve" (seek) wmcn was pubhshsd and dwsmbuled by the 1“ Respondent in September 2013 The fivsl part at me Beak canststed of a eampnattnn at arI\c\es wntten by me 2"“ Respnndanl which had been puhusned zn we/eysiekmr tram September 2010 \o Apri\ 2011 on 1a.2.2o2o - m) m wmn ur prrnnea mntlu and nmammnv wnemsl ma MM: «nnuunz ta wnmn arnmvlsd numsr or nor contmnrng My mom nspnmnnauan, (0) anytmna which lay In rum, wave or In any malmu is mum. alruwlsfinq words mum, and M; an M1.» rsconifllg. 5 7 unmmm nublicaliens (1; u an Minister 1: nllsnod rim lny publicution contains my mm, cnrrcnturl, pnouogr-pn. I-Mm. nom, wnelnq, sauna, music, smunnnn at any olhur mine which n In any Inarmof nu/uam.u.= at Ithaly 2.. ». pnludlclal on public anion .na..:.-9,, mung, nrwhicn is likely n. .;.nn public Gbinlon, or much I: or 1: mrm be mnmy In .ny :.w nr 1: olherwltt prcjudrerxl to or It may to ba Pmludfclar to wane /nluul or national Intunu n. mlY In nu lbw/ulo dlscndon by am: nuamnm In me Euzefl: pmnum Illlnr -baonmly M sublecl to such comlmons u mny be mescnm, me pnnung. lmpoflmun. nvuancnnn. npmdartlulv. paousnlnn, me, Issue. drculallrm, dlsmbuflun or I-wuvsslnn or mt nuwuuon and Inn": puhllclflonl nlkhoyubllsntr cuncumnd (2) rn Inc can of a wbhcalron ongmauna /71 any counhy oulslds Mlfaysra. an moor under subsechorv (1; may, n ma orv1ersapruvIdes- ta: Dmn/M ms rmizonalmn uf any at an Pubhcallons whemslbsfwu or gift! mo data or me omsr, subject ta mm madman: as my D: pvascnbsa Ihsmn. ra) n (he can of a Dcrlowcal Dub!/canon. pmhm me lmoolm/an oranynasz or mm rssw mmat. 4c; rn me case an puhlacalran men has been Issued arappears or pwpon: m have been Issued mun any nub/Ann/ng house, 11 agency or ulnar mums spec/fled /n the mar, aroma/u me lmwnatton of my ems! nuommn wmm may at any tvmv whnmcr Dolor: at aim the rule of me arder has been, or appear: or pwpm :0 have been, msued mm the spsmfled pub!/shlng house, agsrwyovathsr swms,‘ an rvqum: M publvsncr mmal to muka sum d-pout: afsuch nmaurvl and in ma mannor as may be Dfissamodmsmln below any sucll puoucemn may be /moaned. (3) What: the Mwsm is 51031104 nm on pun/mm a! any mark-um ms -ma In mnumnuon al rm An at my rubs Mord-rmndc mu-mm or my condlllan om. Ileonce orpvmllnlnny my mmvng Io mmon ordohmallon, he my my vlvlnn men puwsrm IN oppouunlw In lhow um way can down-It mulv und-rp-r-or-eh 210; should not bu to-MM. an!» m d-pom nrparl rimnaito bu fonbllod «J V‘/mthar or not an Urdu! has bzcn mm umar msuaon (J) m. calm may we: the man: many be/ante lhereaf, rlany — rs; to be fnflalfsd whsm ms punysnu rails 10 appear m court In armm any mmmal chewy: 0' EM’ i¢1'°" "’l""9m My menu In wnnuctian with such publumhun, or an In as pay: our m servemsnr o/anyludflmenl untamed avlrrm Ins uuzmsnw am; out any woeudmy m uormocnon wvtn sum publaumon. (5) When . denosd made undarnarsflmbh 2m) 1. M15196 ta be «mm m unma m satriamenl 0/ any van-am unaersubsscman (:1 av (0. tr». nuts! or Pmmbvlron mu xymcnon (1) shall Dtcomu mamas unless we panama; makes a !Im.f-ardlwsvkss mayberequlre-1 hylhe Mlnlatct (6! A may or ronlvn nunusnu man 5. ruponsrblc and link for any lcllon In name may m-mm pullllxhod In his puhlicntian - 11 sw xwanufivnuuupfiazl ca ) «mm smm IIIVVDIVWW be used m yaw .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (emphesxs added). 15. The Majority corem is olme vonowing vrew: (1) accurdmg lo Amde 1U(2j(a) FC. Pamamsm may by -/aw‘ [defined m Amcle 1511(2) FC xo mclude 'wrmen Van/‘] impaee “rasIn'c!ians" an the “Ireedom of speech and expressron" m Arude wake) FC as Parhamenl ‘deems neoessary or expedient m me rrrrsresr or the security 0/ me Federation or unypan mereur, pub/fc ardel armors/II}/‘. FPPA Vs e wrmen wew Vegislaled by Parliament pursuant to Amcle 10|2)(a) FC Ey mue ammele 4(2)(u) so, the veuduy cl PPPA shew no: he quesmunea on the ground that FPPA rmposes such rwriuions as are mentioned m Amcle 10(2)|a] FC but xneee resmrmens are not deemed neoessary ar exoecflem by Parliament lcrlhe purposes menuenea in Amde 10(2|(a| FC In any evenl, lhere is a “strung plecumplion“ that FPPA rs consmuuunal and the burden of me! lies on the perry seekmg to establish me ccnvary - please rever lo me supreme caurre Judgment delwsred by Erigemoeeph JrSCJ In Public Proncmnr v Funq Chan Choon [1994] 1 MLJ 566, at 576 m this case, me Resperraems are not alleging max 5 741) PPFA ws uneonsmuuer-av; and (2) me ooun can revrew me mems oi the exercrse of me Mwscers Decisxun. Our reasons are es {allows — (5) (h) nmwllhsiandlng Parllamenfs employment ar ma wlde lerm 'abso(uf9 discrstlbrl n s 7m PPPA. the leglsiahlre has also used the Voliowirlg phrases ln mal amvlslon I (l) 'IlksIy to be pmjudlcmi to pub/IC older, mom/lty, manly; (M ‘wary to alarm Public upl‘mL7rl': (ill) “/Ike/y ta as contrary lo anylsw“, and (w) '/Ike/y to be prs/udlclal lo pub!/r: lnlarssl or nallarlal inleresf. The use ol ms above Phrases ln s 711) PPFA clearly shows Parllamsnrs inlanllm Ihal any exercise ol “ by me Mmlslar pursuanl la lhal pmlllsion can be reviewed by the mun an me exlslenoe ulaled ‘absolute alscrsl uv non-exlslence olma likelihood at the menus in Ihal Dmvislurl, and lhe lollwmg Calm al Appeal cases have declded lnal a Mlnlslefs Dscisian is amenable (0 Judicial Rsvlaw - in Data‘ Sui Syud Hamid bln sy-d J-ular Albur (Momorl nulam Nowl) v sls Fnnlm (Mallysln) [m2] 5 MLJ aw, al [41 and (51, Abdul Wahab Palail JCA has delivered the lallmmg judgment - (l) “{4} mo rmnlmr 7.: mm mm nhsalule dhclelfon Io pmhlbfl either Abaoluoaly or m Mn or sums: to cundllinnl, - nublfullon mu hmm puhllclflnni ul 1». pummm mmnut mum In 1: sntlxflnd my pm ol 1: V5 (.; in lnymnnnuprujudic n.,...:.-mymo. 9../.mm.: to man: wor, mommr. mmrr.-or my maly to alarm Fubur DPln)on; or /:1 Ilkaly mm contrary ra anyraw; or 14; muly on M w-Iudrc/.1 ou puonc lnturusk or nmmummn I5] Altnouan ma news: to ban 1: n N: absolute ducnliwv, it is a-ponmz upon an llinislnr buing nrmm n: in mm pncodonl ablIclIvaIacts' (emphasis added), (H) in Arumugam all Kulimutllu v Menleri Dalam Nogurl, Mnlnyxin A on [2013] 5 ML! 114, a\ [5] lo [11], [131 and [M], Apanm Ah JCA (as he: then was) has decided as IOHOWS - ‘I31 From an ubovu Irvumunls, 1: seems mu the crux I1! me appfllanrs cwvknllorv It Inc: In an to u Ipizllod on M: rm. or 'pr-iuuzml In public ardlr‘ :. ... objnuvo :.u:,.m..1 oh subllnllve test m ll 1; our eonslduvd vlm mu: m- M911 lssut mm nan: umpum .. propoud Lay the ubeflam. n 1: net . clear cm of woman mm or sunhww run. n It . lumen of new 1: 4mm on m. wmdlng: u! m. truhllng law um mmnu such pawn: la in: lllnlslor. Yln cnallonne to ma txamlu of ma Mlnlmrr pawn, In rm: an, I: m Nrpld or my pawn: undnr: 7 [PPPAL n Is Ilrlnfoll awn-m m uamm crosaly such arm Dawns much rs ronnuramx «mm s m) Inrru ho: rm mm.-..,. 1.. . 1m, 5: m. am... .. snlslled ml 4.. mny n. his nhsalute .nm.u... by «aw Are my ,.....u.s¢.m, of [M POWII bi/W vesrod Pfltonllf)’ In Ml um... ....: corollary m u... ...u,.,,, ..., uorclsu of such Down! I: .., m. ....,.m. ..u.+.m.. .1 m. Minister. u... m. cm for turn slflsiution ls Jubllctlw. If is without mum . xubllclivo dlscnuanary pm: of the mmsm [111 E-/In mouqn mm mm mm ...n)ocuvu disc:-tiannry pow" ullho mum-r, u was runner unwed say the -pneum mu me IM Ievulres u. ablecflve lssessmenr be underlnken say on M!/vlrtu. nu upper:-nc mllod on me F049!-I Cour! mlmn Vrvblrml sum Mn mmun sum. it Montarl Dnlam Nngon, mnym A Dr: 12421913 Mu aamzmal 1 Cu 300 In Plmeullr wneu lrreads u Iolfowr AWMM W5 em mm mm Mun wnv blnalny pncldunl 1. m ctmecr stnkumint nf 11.. 1.», 1.. m. prison! n..:...c. n :5 lnsumchnt u the ummu moagm n. ma rasonubh vmum to 5. uumu mu 1». lpplllnnt and noted In . murmur Dfiludlcral to public Md". rm Wnsflon um . cowl mustask usum whotmr . mmm. Minislur npnvi:-d a! rm .».m:.: an am m m. shtimenl of men would aw-may ». mvma mil 2». action: or m. .,.p.u...: HIVI ,,..,-mu-u.: in puhlic am, [131 01! m. rm. wmumury. men is Irmmrimd wnn ma sublocllvv diurvllonlry pawn! al rm Mrnlstar, which hn gut m bu ob/mmty vhwud by lhu cum, I: Is our Iudm-n2 mat wc an no ruson no awn Imm mu conclusion: ul Du lumld uialiudu-. who his succinctly wflmn In his grounds of iuaamnz wmn, mm nu, ruds 1.! follows: m; n I: wrludvmonl cm on em rm: sun. but 1». m:s».,.. by m. o.,my mm... m m u.. my 1; n-mm! .9 oumgoou: um mus Iuvlc nnr amm any aazonlo-1 non! standard; file Icflorl taken by Mo DCPWY Mmrstvr Wu om tfvlt is nuflod 14: D1 (Inn in lhaimnrutaln-tlomlncumy(In:-Iudlngnubllc ordell Inr which mo exocmlvt Mars MI ntwnsrbrllnr and alarm has mm In wuvco: 17 allnlonnnlon rim ammy n no decide wan the nocusary hctfonr:.Arn1 vmumor ma daemon /: :n.um..: a. nm. 1. . qulnlnn cl llcls, m DI decmed by lneludye ' (emphasis added), (V11) acoordmg to Muhamad AIM Vusuf JCA In Seplakat Elukllf Sdn and v Mouleri Dnlam Nlnuri A Anor and anothor Ippoll [2015] 2 cm 323, at [1 01 - “[1471 when ... -dministuuve power is wunud as . xubioctiw dircmiun, mm will moi-u in ..-m-:. to rwi w mm an n. ab/«NV: xssissmnnk (Manama Elam um Nool V. Kvlu: Polls mm I cum Apmars 120021 4 cu aw; Ministu 0! Home Alain‘, u.:.,q- V. »..m.... At»... Kn-d-run Nognru mgon cu 699, [1990] v cu (MW) 156: (199011 ML] 351, mm. sum Rlsmn Satan V. mmn Dnllm My-rl. mun-*. 5 or: mm; 1 cm 300, (201013 MLJ aw; rm mat is mu al whether . nasonnble mlnlsm slmimvy shunted wnulfl nave Jared 1.. me sun: Inarmel. Yne nouns cln run an. .m=»u ul mu sllblncfln dlacrvtlan ngllnst ahjscllvu 1.“, 1.. mm In .m.m.:... mm»: m. dlnrltlan has bun may Indlusrfr exercised" (emphasis added): and (xv) In Mohd Falzal bln Musa V M-ntari Kasalamamn Dalam Nogori [2013] 3 MLJ 14, at [13] to [20]. u Zamha Vusaf JCA (as she then was) has gwsn me iullvwing Audgmenl — ‘mu n clnnol n. ans»-ma mu sun-5 m; 1:-nu, M/0.1 msnlmc dlscnflon n m. Mlnrsm to makt such man as tho nnmm DIUC7. Sn Arlmluilm I/IKaUmulhu Howvwr, It also cannot an dilpllltd thlr such disrrition musk mo hnn :...: llrmk In Amid n baing mused av) W. mull list: my In mind, that u 7: rm 'PPIlIanl': mnkonuon um nu Iundamunlnl Ham: undul m. away Conrlltlmon am boon mlrmynd. rn. ncenl mu m illdic rmnn u durluhd by our -nu cum 1. mn the nut and hm zdvlncod nun. Ibo sublnctm to um ol m. ubllcriw me, :1 mt. Ictvon ma: illndamonllf twin. 100 court will not only look inno praudurll flimuss am nlsosuhslunllvolulrnus .. R111 Lulnad senior federal cwnsvf submmui mm M: mma Man cmmludvc mu Inllnwcd MI ob[IclIvu mm. mm mp-ct w- an-gm. In consldnrlnl ma mlnlshfs anmnvn only and In rnmnu to consldur an ram nrmnr-.1 by m. ppot/-nr an m. mm Ind zontvnrt 0/ mo law books -mi in trnlinv mu Flier clrculnfon .5 hnlevvank in ma mtnmm assomon :5 la mu pokonllallry ollnv fourhooks to pr-/uam puonc mu, w. my that m- Iumld High Cnurljudgo hid in Ilnklppliud mu ».-L en: cues subim.-live mg Hnvirw :. :9 omir-ni sinun. anamisn-ruaain iv-sir. wmrh usud Iubjocflvn list could not pnv/nil om Tllulnr Roman Catholic’: cue. conuvuenuy. mm dun rewvcf, vie lurnld mun com Juan: -ma whun mu pimrt nllmce an mas: rm uses.“ (emphasis added). G. How should noun Isle ow Mlnl is. Framised an ins warding oi 3 7(1) PPPA, the Minister may exercise tiis discretionary pawer regaining a pubiicalinn in any one oi the ioiiowirig ciroumstanoss- (1) ii tne putaiication contains ariymirig wnicti is actually prejudlolalim is) public order. in) morality: ic) seourily; wt uuoiio inierest, or (a) national iriieresi: (2) inns conteriis of ms publication are llknly to he preiuaiciai lo - (a) public order. (b) niorsiiiy; or (1) an Asmstam Enforcement omcer lrum me Regumory and Eniarcemenl D1vIs1an (Enforcomunt Dlvlllonj 01 me Ministry 91 Hams Affaus (MHAL oondumed a random inspection of books which were d1sp\aysd for sa\a in me 1-‘ Respandenrs hoclstnre in no 2, Jalan Euklt 11/2, 43200 Fslalmg Jaya, Selar1g0r|')arvIEI1san‘ and (2) ma MHA omoer Dough! (he Bonk (mm u1a1“ Respondenl (or a review and exammanen by MHA under |he Pflnling Presses and Pubhcaliuns AC1 1984 (PPPA). wnn regard to the Book - (1) the Bock was ms: rewswed and exammed by me Enloroemenl Division: 12) the Envomemem Diwslun men subrmlled me Book In the firs! apps\Iar1(.M1msferaiHoms Aflalrs (1" Appellant), (3; the 1-1 Appellant had rewswed the contents at me Bonk arm was satisfied man the Bank had mmamed matters which were likely lo be prejuducm Io — (a) publmorder: (b) morality, and (c) Dubl1c1r1(ere5(;ar1d (4; on 17.11 2020‘ me 1“ Appellanl vssued an order under s 7(1) PPPA m pmmm ansalucexy ma pnnfing, 1mporla(1un‘ (3) W (0) securi V to) pubiicinleresiiol (a) national interest; if the publication contain: anything which is likely to aiarm pubiiti or it tiie oenterits or trie publication are - ta) contrary to any iaw; or to) iikeiy to be contrary to eny tow (1: Allamaflvl Lttntni [Sot:1|on 7(1) PPFA|). 17. Ttie Majnrity corarn Is at trie view mat the tesl to review the exercise oitrte Ministers Decision is as rotiows (1) (ED wnetrier me gruunds tor the Ministers Decision are based on any one or more oi the 13 Atternstive Limbs [Section 7(1) PFPA] [Grounds (Mln|shr'a DlciI|olI)]; whether a ressonebie Minister in the position or the actuai Mimslef and is apprised oi all the relevant tents and oimurnstanoea as the actuei Minister, wouid be satisfied that trie contents of true Pubiiualion in queshan tati wi|hin any one or more M the Grounds (Ministers Decision) mm; and my Pavllamenl has emplnyed me term -msly In seven out av me 13 Nlemauvs Limbs [Seclion my PPPA] (7 “Likely” Llmbl [Socflon 1(1) PPPAI) The |erm we/y' has been construed by the Court at Apnea: m Mohd Falzll, at [21], as loHows- ‘[21] n.. mm which pmhlhns me four mas. demon m. four new .. .. llklly In A. pniudinnl 1.. puhlk: mm m. Ialrnzd Nivh Courlilldge in am 2: nl rm LIN)/ship‘: vmunds of mmmem viewed um mo Dhnse 'm/uamu to wane emu‘ dot: net mmmny "hr in In. .xrmm o! In nctunl public dlsnnior, am Includu lnythlng which M: m. ‘potnmal to dump! public nmuc wrm due refitted. we the! the emphasis wan: to no nu: on m. woms ‘wary to In pn/uatcm n:' ma not mully 'prI]lIdInI:l topublfc mm .3 Jul): 7(1)9IAcl3a1 Bmvldns (or two sltunlona, on. 1: mm. M- hubllcnllanls pnludlcrnlta paw: -um and IM mm wnuv ms rlkely to M pr-macimo public Did". 1.. mi: mum cm. tho nrdor mm mu :1 '1: Ilksly la 5. pm/‘udic a nu Is prlludfclal to public ontar, man u must be Shawn m. ulsluvcn ohm actual public drsomor. But If In It -umy to no Wilumcral 10 man: own‘. is in cm inslznl cu am it would zavlr nnylhirvy which has rh- pakunfill m .1.-mm public am. So 1.. ml. cnnloxg oven mom we mm mm the learned man cuunludnt. Mal mm needs In M Pmven Hon 1: not mu-1 pilblrv .1/mm’ but anylhltvv wmcn has Illa pom. .1 to .4.-mm punnc cider; n is not boo-us: anm warm 'p:-/mm: to man: must‘ am because me me: sures ‘Is mrely to be nreludlclal ta nub”: umr (emphasis added) ta 19. The Cour! pr Appear in Maui: Faizai has diirerentiaied me meaning dr “aclual public prder lrum '/Ike/rhaad a/pre,uui'pe to public oniev". Acecxding ip Moria Fniul, the phrase ‘likely to be prs/udicfal to public order may auvsr -anyrh/rig which has the poiemrai to disrupt pumic order. For tne 7 “Likely Limbs [Seclian 7(1) FPPA], me Maipriry corarn accepts me nieening or ‘like/V as decided in Mona Fllxul. The purpose at me 7 “Like/_V Limbs [section 7(1) PFFA] is in confer on me Minister a preventive power tn ban any pubiieahdn which has the potential to muse me aeruat subiecl mener ol the 7 “Likely Linips [Section 7(1) FFFA} ueiore tne subiect rriauer becomes a reeiiry. such a purpose is uriderstandabie, ii nor neeessaryi |n prevent any innarrirnewry pubhcauan fmm rearing |he labnc pi ouv rnuiti-rseiai, niuiti- religious and mum-cullurai eocieiy. Tne appiiearipn ol the Test in a panicuiar case depends on the contents L71 me pubhcaucn in question end an the relevant teas and cimumstances regarding the pupticauori. Accordingiy. rrorn irie view point 01 the slats decisis riadinnei cases an the vahdlly nr Invalidity dr Ministers decisions regarding publications pursuant to s 711 ) PPPA carvio| be binding precedents Whethlr B-In II u-lid tumor 1. 7 1) PPPA According to the Gazelte Nutihcatiun (Earn). the sari was issued by me Minister on the louowing three grounds: (1) me Eouk was hkely in he praiuaimai In public order: 12) me Book was hkely in be preiuaiaai In muralily, and 13; the Book was hkely in be preyudiciai lo pubiic inIeres1 [1 Grounds (aan)]. 20 Appiying ins Tesi, ms mam issue in ms Appeal is whelher a ieawiabis Minisier in the position 01 me 1“ Appeiiani and I5 apprised of aH the reievani iacis and cimumsiances regaiding the Book as me 1-1 Appaiianc, wouia be sausned than me ‘ and oonlems 0! me Eook Vall within any one or mam ai ins 3 Grounds (Ban). H(1). Wn Book likely to pre udlol “mumtlgm 21. Firsiiy, Ana Maiom, coiam nas perused me we omie Book (Gay IS OK! A Christian Perspective) (Book's TlIIe)am1 iis aniira oonienis (snows coimnm This Majuniy Judgment snaii radar in ine Book's Tina and Book's conienis ooiiecuvery as me ‘Back (1I1Ia and I2on\onIs)" On an oiaieciive assessment ov me Euok (me and CoMen|s), the Mainncy Cnram finds man we Bonk (me and Contents) conveys ine generai message and/or impression that humosaxuallly is not objectionable in Chrisllamly aim W. is therefore pennissime In man reiigian [GonIraI Messagallmpussion (Eonk)] 22 The term ‘mommy is not defined in PPPA. Tne Majnnty Cunam refers la the ioliowing uicuunanss which give me meaning of “moraiiryx 2: IN xKdhDRVnUIUDF7s1\anCA -ma Sum mm. WW he HSQG M van; M niimruflly MIN; dun-mm VII AHLING mi (1) according io “Oxford Eng/ran Dictionary‘ ioem, “moralm/' means- “Mural me, bohnvlour conlarmlng la maul 1... or accept»: nmai uanu.-ms. up. in nlltlon to uxu-I meme, nemnei aua/mssjudgod m be good “ (emuhesis addcdl: and (2) ‘B/ack's Law oicmnenr, Nmnn Edmon (2009), at p. 1100, gives the iaiiowmg defin on o1“mors/rt_V - 'manllry(1AcI 1 Cwvlormflr wnn rvcovnixad nllu olcwnctcnridud. 2 rn. ch.lr.Ic1lr DI buiriq V.-mm, up. in Juxual maflets. ‘mm terms "morlIfo"’ and "lmmnml/W Irv Imdovtlood to mm . uxuil connanfion " William » Golding, PM/osophy oVLaw 55 (19757 ' (emphasis added). 23. The Majority Comm accepis the above meanings oi “mols/IV as intended by Pariiamcni HI 5 my PPPA. Pmnisec on the above meanings oi ‘more/n/'. me Mammy Curam nas no nesmauon to decide |ha| a reasmabls Minister VI ma posmon oi lha 1- Appeliani and I5 apprised 01 all (he reievam iaas and circumstances regavdmg me Book as me 1" Appeiiani, wuuld be saflsfied mai me General Message/impression (Book) is Vikely in pieiudics “mola/My’ (Llkollhood Io Pniudlu Morality). The exlslenoe oi me 15 IN xKAhDfivnuuupF7eziancA -nae Sum ...na.. M“ be used m mm we ann.u-y MW; dun-mm n. arium pen.‘ Lwkehhood to Prewdice Moralny In lhxs case is prermsed on me lanowmg reasons: (1) the mural vames at Mamysian someay do um condone, let akune accept‘ humusexuality In other words‘ rmmusexuamy is oonsldersd \mmora\ by Malaysian Dublin. 12) m the HC case cl Llm Hul Llnn v CM Nuddl-sun [1979] 2 MLJ134,at135,Yusof1 J has deemed as lollaws - ‘ms patfbanw be/onyx 117 ms cmme mmmmmy rn Sarawak sne mmxaa my: msrrlflgs wmv ms msaonaem m cam. m ./ww 1972 m my ms um: yair, um Iutumod Io Sarawak «mm by m. Iesaondsnt In 1974 may /wed and cohabirzd .3: Teacher‘: «menus sl Mama! /n me dismal nl Baum m .IanuBW 1975 Ins respolrrlsnt 19/! me mammomr name ma wsm ru Smgupus an Pu: my back to Canada Na nu-1 Indicated nu ma palfllansr max he wauld notmmm wnfle the marrfllwf wu msrsrvng, my pemom said mat on Ivspondvnr ma tlkun own: and w-v-tap-d . pmponslw lot homanxunllly which 9.. ma not encounyed not museum. nmmg lnls pelted In 1274, Inc minondent mu spent man ol his mm mm ms mm mum oi ms own rm, lndudifw sum. wly-ward 1..-/.41.’: my drug-Ilka; rn. rllpundilvl Draught mm Irionds am (D m. mummanhl homo um on mm occnxlons ha also took dlllws and sup: mm lhom In an noun n'.vm, nglrd m tin plflfiunufx upbringing .. In .u.'.:.-c rune ofchlneae origin, In my onlnlan, n 1. reosarubk for as re view the m olsodomy wlln lbhonence and two}! 1; ng-lnsl ml. conduct. ‘ran as: M xodalny la caruldnnd smmalus and unclenll by on corrrrmrnmr to man an. BOIWW-F. Such mule-mu conduct mouwn p-rmmaa amanv mm w-stlmora shnuld natbn nflnwad In mmpr me commwllfl/'s my mm." (emphasis added). and (3) In View ollhe reason and HC decision slalea VI the above suh— paragraphs 11) and (2), a reasonable Mlrrisler in me Doslllcvl oi me 1“ Appallanl and is apprised oi all me relevant lacrs zirld circumstances regarding lire Book as me 1-‘ Appellant, would have been 5 led that me publlcaliun, sale, circulation and possession cl me Back (aaalr-s Publlcmiorl/Sula/Circulallun/Pussnssiun) HI mis oourury has me polerrlial In preludice morality, namely, mere exisls a Likelihood lo Premise Morallly Wllh mgam la the Book H(2). wlmrr-rauakwaslikal lo reud|ce“ublicon.1e/' 24 According to Sexual Sn Ram FCJ in me Federal cuun case ol Dlrnla surl. hlrl Rlaman Slleh v Marrurl D-larrr NI orl. Malaysia 5 Dr: (20101 3 MLJ am, al [12], an act preludlbes “public order‘ lHhe act disrupls — (1) the “even lempo olme lrie onrre community‘; (2) pu safely: or (3) publlclranqulllmy, 25. in View of llle General Messagellmpreeelen (Bank), a reasonable Mlnlsiel in me peelllen cf me 1-1 Appellant and le apprleeu ol all me ralevanl lads and circumstances regarding the Book as me I“ Appellenl, would have been satisfied lllal lrle General Message/inlereeaien (Book) is likely lo plejudlee or has me poxenllal lo prejudice “pub/lL‘ oldaf as iollowe: (1) the Book has ole poienlial in disrupl me even lenlpo of me me cl our conlnlunnyl audio! 12; me Bonk la likely |o alerum puhlic tmmzulllly ln Malaysia lukelineee to mlualee Public Order] The General Message/lrnpresslnn (Bock) would cause me existence ol a Llkeilhood ta Freludice Puellc Order because . (a) .1 a male perscn (X) eenlnlne a nelmsexuei acl wllh enamel male person (V) by me lnlmauenarl o1><'s penis lnia line anus 0| V, this hurmvsexual aci consulates an uffenoe under 3 377A (carnal inleroaurse against the aide! 0/ name) ol me Penal Code (PC) wnlcn ls punishable with e maximum inlprisonnleni el 20 years and/orwhlpplng under s 3775 PC‘ and lb) ll me Back ls not banned, ' llkely lnai ine General Messegenmuraslon (Bank) would disrupt ule even Iempu el me Me at our commumly and/or public xlenqulllry as follows - ll) there would be alaaflecxlan in lne Malaysian puellc wlin Ihe Malaysian auincriiies on why lrle Bank was allowed In be primed, said and circulated in this oaumry wllen in ln xKdhDRVnUIDDF7s2lanCA -nee s.n.l In-vlhnrwm be used e mm ms nflmnnllly MIN: dun-mm VI] nFluNG WM! nemoscxuelily is enniinalizea in as 377A and 3773 PC (Publl: Dln action)‘ and inc Public UlSaWEC1lOr| has llie polenllal (0 lead in public unresi, if nul public riot. N(3). Wu Book Ilkoly to an ndlc 'gubIIc Interest‘? 26. 27. The lenn ‘publi 'IIIerasf' is defined in OED as follows: “rm ban-In or cimnz-in emu community -c . whom‘ in. nubile Wad “ (emphasis added) The Majonly cbiain adupls me abuve ordinary ineening at 'bublic lrlre/es! In 5 7(1) PPPA. in me Malorlty ceienvs View, a reasonable Minisler in inc besilion of me 1'‘ Appellant and is eppnsea of all me ielevenl lens and circurnslances regarding the Book as lne 1" AppellanL weuia have been satisfied inai the General Messagelinipisssien (Book) is likely lo prejudice ar has me poicnlisl lb pieiudice public interest (Likelihood to Prlludlcl Publl: lnnmci This decision is based on me iolimiing reasons (1) as explained in me above sub-paragraphs 25(3) and (bi. llie General Message/lmpresslarl (Bonk) nas me pclenlial in cause Public Dlsaflscimn wnien in luni, may lead in public urvEs1 sueii a pelenliai ouieeine lioni me Eook‘s Publicaliori/sale/cimulaiion/Pcssessien, is likely |a prejudloe public tnteresx because the Buck's Punttcanon/sate/crmutatten/Fosseestm does not bring any aenem nr advamage |o our soetety as a whale Nor Is there any pubttc good wmon may arise from tne Bank's Publtcallon/Sale/Ctwulatton/Fossesston: and 12) the Genera! Messagemnpreeston (Book) conveys to nan- chnsuane tn Matayeta (ha! homnsexuamy Vs pennmaa tn cnnsnantty Homasexuamy Is not aflawed In tstant. Aucerdingty, the General Messagellmpressiun (Bock) does not promote a narmomous rslaltonshtp between Chrishans and the Musltm majnnly In Ims country. I. ma laarnod HO Juztgg aggly tho Test? 23. u ts trite law man an appenate mun can umy imervene and se| astde a lower courts exercise at discreliun when we lower mun has - (1) cammilled an emr a! law: or (2) taken into mount an inelevam constderanon In making a decision » pteaee reler It: me Federal Coun‘s Judgmenl delivered by Abdul! Hamid Emaeng FC.) VI Dalo‘ Sari Anwu Ibrnnint v Public Prosecutor [2010] 2 MLJ 312. at [A8] 29 In one case. mm respect. the learned HC Judge are not empty the Test as explained In the above Pans H and Htt) lo H(3). ms consmutes an error of law an the pan of me HC whtch warrants appellate tntenrention H" Appealanle Error) If the leamsd Hz: in IN xKdhDRVnUIUpF7e2\anCA ‘Nata Sum ...n.. WW be used m yaw ea nflmnnflly mt; dun-mm VI] mum Wm! c. 5 10. ll. pmauaion, vepwduawrl, punlicalicn. sale, issue. circulation, dlslribulion and Dossesslorl oi the Book (am). The Ben was puhlishsd in me Federal Gazelle on 17.112020 [Guflh Notlficnflon (B|n)]. Frocudnlns In mo Hlgh Court He The 1-‘ and 2'“ Respondenls lrelened collecuvely in lms Malarlly Judgmanl as me “Rc:pondIlltI') med an applicallan in liie HC agalrlsl me I“ Appellanl and me Malaysian eauemmenl (2~-1 Appellanl) iui, amang nines‘ an alder n1 cerfiorali la quash ma Ban (Jud I Review Application) This Mamily Judgment shall reler in me 1-‘ and 2"” Appellants colleclively as me 'AppIll.Im2". The HC granted leave (or me Judicial Review Application The learned HC Judge subsequenlly allowed me Judinlal Review Appllualion as lulluws- (1) s cenmn order was granted lo quash me Ban‘ and (2; me Appellanla shall pay oasis in a sum cl RM5‘OD0 Io llle Respondents (Hols Doclslnn). The Appellanls nave appealed to lnis mun against me HG’: Decision (mi: Appnal) 39. Judge had seemed ma Test, II is ctear mat a reasonable Mlmstzer in the paslflon of me 1*‘ Appalrent and ts appnsca at all the relevant facts and emmnatanoes regarding the Book as me 1-‘ AppsHant, would have been seusned ollhe exwslenoe of— m Ltkehhaod te Frsyudlce Murahiy; (2) Ukehhand to Prejudice Puhhc order, and (3) Likelmood lo Prewdice Pubuc |n|eresI (reverted colletmvely in |hrs Maionty Judgment as lo Pnludlu Moulhy/Publlc ord-n/Public Immt“). ‘hood The evmenuat basis tor me 1" AppeHan('s juslnficaflon of the Earl was the Book (mic and Contemsj wtucn — (ab conveyed tne eenerat Message/Impression (Book): and (up gave nse la me Likelihood la Premitce Maralny/Public Order/Publtc \n|eres|. The existence 0! Ltkehhaod |o Premice Morality/Public Order/Public Interest dislmguishss tms case lrom all the prevnaus cases cttec by tne Respondenls' lesmed counsel, Mr. Edmund Ban Tai seen. . With resaecl, me Isamsd HCJ made a Nam ermr at fast in deeming that the 1“ Appellant ‘/11 [act dissected signr/“man! excerpts‘ mtne Bonk tzm Appealabla Error) because - J. I‘) (2) (3) the reamed HCJ rarrea to consraer paragraphs 9(a) and 12 oi the 1“ Appeuants amaavrt amrrnea on 27.5 2021 11“ Appanann 1-‘ Amaavm which stated tnat the 1‘ Appellant had read me elmre Book In other words‘ tne 1- Appeuant ma not ‘L1issecl“ tne Book: the 1“ Appellam was only mghlighlmg rna Likelihuod in Prejudice Merahly/Pubhc Order/Pubhc Interest m sub- paragraphs 12|e)\a[i|oHhe1" AppeHan|'s 1" AW'\dav||: and the fact lhat the 1*‘ Appeuam umy highhghled passages in 42 out at 226 pages or the Book. dud net mean that the other 134 pages 04 me Book nagata the exrstanea oi tne Lvkehhaod lo Prejumce Moramy/PubHc Order/Pubhc Interest. H R rihnn'sa7 32. Article l9(I)(a) and (2) re aromas as venowa ”Am:4e V9 Pmlectinn alcerhln right: r:glrm'ng Inedarn nlwnch, at: (1; All chitin: man um um right- ra» lo iveedom arspeecn um umesslon.‘ r2) ' Numlrw in subvrlluu 1-) ursr-rm (1) man um um up-ruion ol my Inrilfinq lnw, arpnvln! rho sm. Imm mmna nny rm, In an r. 5 such Iaw rm»... naaarublu institutions on Me eltlrclsl OH!!! Hill! confuvid by the said sub-clausl In In: Inflnrls of MI iovllvlwlfi’ illfl Vnlllflli’ of India, IIN sunurity al In: sum, rn....sr, rlllfions wim innivn Sr-In, Dublin: ordu, docomry or nw-llrr. or In umlon In cunmnpl or man. deilmlnlm arinckemenlla .n olkrlce “ (emnnasis added). 33. In suppon ol lhe HG‘; Declsiurl, me learned NC Judge has rehed on, among others, Rzdh:kr1|hrun'a cm. wllh respect, lhls wnslllutas an error at law (am Appnlzb Error) due la lna following reasons U) Anlcle 19(2) lc provides mal a scale VI India may make any law whlch lnlposss ‘reasonable rest!/crlons‘ on ma sxerclse of the lreednm of speech and expression “in the fnlaresm of lha savemlgnly and inlagrily of India, the security of the Stale, friendly rslalians wnn fwelgll Sfales, Dllb/lc order, decency or mora/fry, er in /e/afian in contempt av ml/rt, delamatlon or lncllalrlsnt lo an affs/we". The wording ol Amcls 19(2) lc IS materially ailleranl lmnl our Amcle |D(2|(a) FC (Famsms/lt may by law impose ., all [ma /rssdom of speacn and expresslon as Par/l'ameIl!l Ueems necessary or median: m the interest 0! me seounly 0/ me Fede/anon or any pan lnsnsof, fnsnd/y rslsnons mm other countries, public order or moralrly and rssmctrans deslgnsd to pmlsct the privileges of Parlllamerlt Dr of Elly Legislalive Assembly or to pm»/ids agalrls! contempt 0/ court, defamation. or rncilemenz to any olferloe), and (2) our Supreme calm has decided as lellaws M rung Chm choon, at p 5751:: 57e— ~cI..IIy, III.n.Im, In nI.I.ysI., lln puslllon III In. com whvn eonslderinn In Inmnwn-nI or w: RIIIIII Irmawn or wlecn ma ¢xI"\.u-Ion] ls uurmnx hum Inn 12/ In. pmuon al In. court In Indh whon I,~an.I.4.IIng nn lnlrlnglmant of In. cqulviltnr Right undo! In. Indian Dorvstmllfon wnn Iuqlrd la lndin, III: Inm-.n Canstiluliarl mam. thll the Iesmttlans, mn In within the Innns plescrrbed, must he msonnnu m1 so an cum! would be undcrl -my to derldt on It: Ivlsanlbhmss. But, with mean! In M mu, wh-rI lnmngtmlnl of In. Right ol Inudaln of spuch .n.I Ixphssfon Is nlleved. the stone alme cowl‘: Inquiry V5 Ilmltnd to In. Izutrllnn whethcr In. Impuynld Ilw cvmu wIInIn In. mall I,» In. pumlflnd rufrfcflnnx. Sn, rm ..I.InnI., II In. Immlflnld law, In nun .n. subsllncl, ls . law nlnflnv Io till sunI.m Imlmonted undo! In. p-IwnIIn.-a rvillicrinns found In I:I1fl{?Hn In- uu-mn whnlltu II I. rnmnnblu doll’ not .n-I.‘ In. I-w . Monuvu, by El I2; of m 4, II I; naI . lrcund Imn.II.ng. am In. nsmcllon docs nntrvlaft in am ol In. In.IIm woerfiod In an 10fl)(:I for mum: . can am». In. I:mI.cIIan al In.I .m-II. (sun... Sinqh V nI.nI..- 5..., IzIJnhare al p m vmuld In VI 1. pm II am-Imer my. in l1ZIlbl M In. Constmlllon uxpmnly pvvlllblk‘ In. qlluflonlrlg of In. nlldlty U, lny In on In. amundrnalsuch . I... 'Impan.1 rI.1lIlctlan.I .. .r. rmnllamd In .n IaI2) ol In. r..ImI Cansllnman Inn Xhosa Iislrlcfloni won not .I..In.a nccunI1 or umI.nI by Pafllamml nu In. pwpom momiorvld W! .n 1lI(Z)2 Is pp v Plrlm cnmnsmmymw 517 car 2:5; u fallow: mu m. posman al tho win undnl aur amsmuunn Is not as rm us me posmon of ma pm: mm» M: /mum cmumven -nu man so when wmmnd to ma palltlon ol the ans: In Enyllnd ar tin Llnlttd sum uIAmIItca. This, olcoursn, moans mat rm mam. cans and m. Privy owner: can ou.m..m mm: v A-G ofAmFqI4I and Emma. 5 On‘ mm on by nal be dlscuaxed. In same so an m mam by wnu mmm CJ my In cmmnmn of sun. of Korantan v ammmun of m. Fcdamtinn 1:! Many: and rum Abdul Rnhmln Puma Am. at a :53 co( m. mm n. ma wu mm mu Oonlflluflon ls primarily to bu lnllrprulnd «man In awn ram wnlls mu not In um am at mroqru dawn hum ulnar cnunmus such as am: Imam, mu unmu sxms niflmurina or Aunt:/in mmnm al the -pnllcnton gr mi: -ppmcn when Intermeclnn our Federal Conrllrulron -we to M found In Lon Koo! Clmon v Guvcrnmem umaraym at p my :0! 1A mm» it our Kn sun L Or: 5! p 113 my 25 c. Indnd m. n n pom: wll mogmm ma .ppu..1 u, an Privy Council (An Lard nzaeum; In Adlvbenro v Aklntuln .1 :2 1:.‘ (emphasxs added). Until our Federal Court overrmes Punq Chan Choon, as a matter av snare decrsrs, all calms in «his country are buund by Punq chm chnon. Regrenalfly m this case. Veamed L>ounse\ 35 K. for min ins Appellants and Rsspandems am not rater the Ieamed HC Judge In Pung Chen Choon 34. smrssciion 4(4) HRCMA pmvldes as lnHow: ‘For we Imnson WMRCMAJ, nmm mu 5. pm: In mom] in IN Qxtvnt inn it I: noflnconxlstunl mm {sq " isnipnasis added). 35. The isarnea HC Judge had relied on s 4(4) HRCMA to appiy UDHR in INS case, The Maiorily Comm is of me View that the learned HC Judge nsd cummilled an error oi law by appiying s 444) HRCMA io iuslfly ins invocaliun or UDHR in inis case i4"- Appaallblo Error) The reasons «or unis decision fife as luHows: [1] s 4(4) HRCMA only suws ‘regard or consideration M UDHR «or me purpose or HRCMA In the exisni mai such a consideration of UDHR is not Inconsistent with me FC, seciion 444; HRCMA has nai pravided for UDHR |a be isgany binding per sq in «ms muntry. UDHR is cnly enimoeanla in this oounlry ‘N Parhamenl has expressly pmwiea Ifl an Act of Paniamenl ihai UDHR is iegany binding The Maiunly Comm refers In in F105 iudgmenl In Knn Foods snhwnlz Holdlnq Gmhfl v Pnndaflar Cap Dagangan [2015] 11 MLJ 702, at [23] and [24]. as follows. “[221 Malaysia Is a wnsiory la in. mi»-s Avrumnnt on 1.1.1925. rn. hllnwlny cases nan docldod ms: nu If ml-ysu is bound by - mm In public Mlornlllnnal rm, such . army 1. .,nIy -nrmum. In M rs’-" """"=l»-I Ilvr Ifour P-rmmlm ms pnsnd Ingtsman to give men In such . new m in tn. mam: Court tn! 0! am Blqi a. Dr! -1 Kprnjun maul Snrawak L mothur appeal mm] A MLJ 297, at panagmpn van. mus sn.nn=c./ In In III": was]. amum as fallow: - was] on ma um whnlhnr mu court should use vnmnnuunau nonnrunnoaroa In mu uunmr ta Int-rpm IN: 5 and 13 :1! m. rum: Cansmmlan Hun anly this m any. Inmnauonu mum do not Ioml nan ar our law, unlus mm pnmsrons um bun Incorpwav-.1 mtn our raw V (emuhasm adrisd). 42) /77 N! Am sun v mum. srmna or Mnmmod Am law] 5 Mu :15, M pavagmans JIZ 35 and 3741, 1-wlwi sum. mu held In mu cam auppm u !n!lnws— ‘I301 Blfore promutny to discuss tn. lssuu, wn would an In mnn m snml gm 1 discussions nnoul czmw. csmw wu mama by the General Asmnnry or en. Urmod mmons rn ma Md um. Into /um. In m1. 1: 1. . landmark lnmrnntlannl ngrnmlnk mu mmns Mnclphs 1:! human nuns and evuaunr for womvn around my world. As or :7 Amu mu, 1:: sum nm nllll-d w :c¢t:Iod¢orruli. /35; Mlllyri is . siynnmy 1.; CEDAWMM rutmodfun ms [37] In our consldend opmron, csmw am no! my. mu lama mm In Mnlayxh bccaun Hm sun I: not nnnm Into inyIoc1ll9!IsIIIlon [as] In llmoucic-I mm, mu Ipnliu 'on on-nzemnuannr legal sylkrnu is alien explnlned In terms olme mwclnnes uf tncanamuon (or mrmllml and lnrvrlorm-doll (a> musn-;, me] Amnmg In the daolrms ul rnwmaranon‘ mlsmatmnal raw rs srmpry lwo cumpununls al mgr. body 5/ know/adg: ca/(ad law Law is seen as a Jmqfis entity at which /ntomalmnal and munmrpa! vsrsrona am mm/y Damculal manrfeslal/on A /udvs ca/I dummy . mummuu! my Anvnhd my mntlamcls an mlemalmrlal raw benxusv, m sum: mm. the latter rs my to pm/sr! M71 In. doctrine nl ttlnxfonn-Eon, an m. ulllu nnna, hnldk tn-1 mu m sysnnu or Im, Inlnmnllon-I law and nmnmpar raw, an cum;-rmty nvirala. A nu. or :n2.n..uunar law can only bosom! pm or municiphl my if .n.: ..:..n it is trunslwmid inla rnuni p.: 1... by the mm: or Ion! Ieqfsmion (Bee Dlnah She/lan(EI1)y lnlemallona! Law In Domain: Legal System /HCDWDIEIIDII. Trurvslomlanan and P-:sun:»an(0x1un1 L/mvanfly F1955, 2017)‘ Bmwnhe‘ I, Pflnclp/es of Vnlsmalrmal Law,.?M Ea, mam. 1996, chm; [411 The pr-nice In Malaysia mu. mqua to Me npntlcamu. of lnlemfllonll rm 1: when/ly um um: n ma: In Britain, mm-/y, rm mcmm pamsm an truly-mnklng cnpaclry mm: the pom: to we ellect anmuttcllly ru-ls mm panmmm. For - may In D: up-mm In u.:.y:r., mmrm, u mqulns I-glslnion bypuflnmonl “ Yeflwlvisrx mud). and (3; 1». judgmnnk of Snunklr .I 1.. n. mm was) In um um. coun use af Pub": Proseculur v Nlrunvnn Sookmvll 4 Ovs[1W7I2 MLJ1I70,al1U5— ‘A: In um, Am'cIu 75(1) 12/ m. M: ysiln cam.-mug" mm“ m rmur Parliament wlm m. compmnc. to mac! leglsllllwv for tho nu-nos. allrluzluncnllnu tmflos. -an-mm a. zamnnrlnna human who Fadurntian and Any om: :aunfl1 or my decision ol my Innemntionnl amlnlrnlon or whirl! the mmnm ls . .......:m. Sn am. . Gommntlon 5... ram: mm mm. In :4. ysrn, Parflamonl mun mu . law ta )3 um um 17.. c..m.g. by A. An! .5 any man sxamnls and the rmpmabnn of (he Geneva Cwwenlron an we Temmnal Sea am an Comryuuus lens may by In: Emergency (Euanlml Powers) o.a....a..o.. No 7 av mes». srromsr No Malaysian smut: has bun cm to an to snow ma. Mm: 11 7...: blcnml pm of u...y:.... L..... 1.. Im 17.. o..::.....:. ,2... citnd stops .. Article 1: my me lnulsflble Inference masl be 17...: Arllclc u was notlntmdui to bu lmporlod mu m: cnunlry V renwms... med}. R4] Hand an an now am, /clrmor .11.. lo 17.. mu-s Agrnomcnk .....m n an n. xhawn n... we ‘mu-s Agrnmnnl ms been Vemsrand by u... ;=...r....-... is par! of our .......mpar law. 4.. example or me transfomuuon oi nu. Farts Cunwrmon in. m. Fruhctrun al ....:...-.1... Pmp-rly 17.‘ zamm ....1 .....-:.¢ 1: Stockholm on 44.7.1957 rpm. Convention) um mtps Aureemenl rm our Mllaysrnn law Is 7.. : 1412) rm (wen Pfuv/dos Mal Amer. say: ollhc mm ca..u..ua.. and mm we 0! m. wrs Aar-......: mu uaply far u.. pumase of 4-I-rmln-‘no whom-r . «m .....u ls . well-known mm mark or omamrs-1" (emphasis added); 12) HRCMA. Includmg ils 5 Am), dos nu| pmwde (ha| me exercxse ol the Mwmstefs msuenonary power under 5 7(1) PPFA ws sumac! to UDHR. and m D. Qrcunds for H0‘: Decision 12 According to me Gmunds 01 Judgment ior me HC's Decision (eon. among others - (1) (2) (3) (4) (5! paragraph 12 ($0.! - ine Bonk oflared an piiernniive View inai cnrisiraniiy noes nei oppose homoaexuahly, paragraphs 17 to 19. 23 and 33 GOJ — me pupiicaiien of me Book was nor iikeiy io be preiudiciai In pupiip eroer. since ine pupiicaiion af me Back in September 2013, inere was rie unlnward lncldem whicn arose irern the Book: peraigrapn 21 GOJ — inere was no evieenoe oi haw rnany copies oi irie Book vied been prinledi pupiisneo or cirauiaieo were me Bari: paragraph 27 GUJ - me response ey nierripers nf eeeiery reiarred in by me 1-" Appeiianl could noi be aooeplsd |o represeni an accepted View in reoeni rirnes er eiiher rigni or wreng by right-lhinkmg rrrerripers atscciety as whale: paragraph 25 em - mere was no evidence inai irie views oi diriareni religious and eiverae cultural segrnenis oi sacisly had been ieken inio consideration by ins 1-l Appeiiani. At most ine incieences reierreo In W \ne 1-‘ Amzeiiani represent uie views of a Iirniieo group at persons oi a pariiouiar re on wnicn in no way represenis me Maiaysien sociely as e wnoie; (3) are above aeereron 1s supporled by me Ccurt at Aupea\'s Judgmen Snpakal Efnklll, at [57], as vauaws — “I511 As mnnts mu mm of Imrrmronu law sr.rmn.rs being -ppuunle. mu tho Ieqlumre expecznuerrs or m lpntflnnts rrr rm: ream lhe Ilnwtlnyt 9! mo lumld Judy: m tunnel. socrrerr 4 Imvoml rniruly rIquIrI.I our courts In nm npnrd to mom) m are nmcns or rrrmpnuuon mu In rm lbnncn cl r.-Ion! consllnmonll pmvrsrerrs or [F0]. me rm; ol mm rrppuls nqulrv ms caurl m nm rvglrd tn cxpmu cons-tlnmnnnl pmvmarrs In rm Iorm al nrls. 10, nm: 5. mm L: no crmrpamng nnd fa dincfly apply Inbomaflona! raw rukr re suppltnnnt our domusllc‘ Imwlslvns ' (smpnasrs added). L. s uld court con -r mmers omar than Genenl M lm sinn Bank? 35 The 3 Grounds (Ban)cor1L:emadIhs exrsrsrrce ailhe L1kehhaod In Prqudlce Moml1|y/Pubhc order/Puburc lnterssl. As explained In Mohd Faixal, me 3 Gmum1s(Ean)d1d no: concern acruax prejudice Kc muraliiy, public amsr and public interest. Acmrarnguy, me Majonty Coram rs 0! me vrew mar the vourmrg consraersuorrs are nor relevant far (he eoun |o decide on lhe exrsoznee or nan- ex1s\eI1oe at me Lrkewreaa to wreruaroe Morality/Fubhc Older/Pubhc Imeresr: (1; me lac! mar cor a Denud 01 more lhan 7 years mom seprember 2013 rpemrcsnorr or me Bock) urml 17.11 2020 [me dale cl me A) 37 as. Gazelle Noxmcaiian (Bari)l, mere was no untoward Incident which had the Book’: Pubiiualion/Sal2/Circulation/Possession, arisen tram (2) there was nu evidence regarding how many copies 01 me Book nad been published, soid, circulated and possessed by Malaysians, (3) the Apneiianis did not adduixz any view andlur response from dmereni reiigiuus and culiurai groups at our society regarding the Book: and (4) Dr Wan’: Expert opinion; and ndi adducs any axpsrfs View to rebut Dr. (5) me Apneiianis Wan‘: Exparl opinion. K5 the learned HC Judge had taken into account irrelevant matters as E’/Vptairled in Ihe above subparagraphs 3611) to (5) In her Ladyshids exercise or discretion In aiiaw me Judiaiai Review Apphcation (s'- Appulabln Error). the 5'" Appealabie Ermr is a ground (or appeiiais intervention in this case. Even if it is assumed that the oansidaraiions stated in me above sub-paragrapns 35(1) tn (5) are iaievam in ' uase, ma Majority Coram has nu nesiuiion to decide that sucn considerations do not disabuse a raasonaiaia Minister in the position at the 1" Appeuani ironi being taiisiied that the Genera! Message/Impression (am) has the potemiat to cause the Likelihood la Preiudioe Muralily/Pubhc Order/Public Incerasi in ulher wards, no1wl|hs(andlng me «set lnsl me 1-‘ Appellant ma nul consluer me matters slated m ms above sub-paragraphs 36(1) la (sl, s reasunable Mlmslel ln me posllinrl oHhe1"AppallanIwouId sllll be ssllstled Ihal the General Messagellmpresslun (Book) has me polenllal to cause me Llkellnood lo Preluuice Muralllyll=ubllc Order/Fubllc lnleresl. M. Whither Minlglar ls mg a by Anlclu. in and am Fc to niva n rigm ol figgrillg Iuinm making ihn MinisInr's Dncislon 39 The Mslorlty Coram wlH new conslder me quesllorl of wnemer me Mlnlsler ls required by males 5(1) and all) rc lo give a ngm or hearing lo any person who , (1; i rmeresled m a pubhcaticn, and (2; has a legmmale expeclaliorl lfl Iespsct our-e publication [Innr-and Farllas (Publlmlonn - nelure me Mlnlslefs Declslorl is made under s 7(1) FPPA 40. Section las PPPA slsles as lollaws: m pun». who nu burl wlntod . mm orwml: undo! ml: Acuhallbq yivnn .n Dpparlunlly la in humbolon . docman 10 mm or suspund men mm or p-ml: L1 mm undo! subsecflon an). 612) or mm. as the em mlybo' lemphasls added). 41. According la EFIGIK Ahmad Hanlr bin Hambaly, the learned Serliur Federal counsel who represenls the Appellanls in ‘nus Appeal. a comparison between belween s 1(1) PPPA on the one pan and ss 7(3) and 135 PPPA on lhe otner part. shows lne Inlenllorl ol Parliament in exclude a nghl ai healing balms the Minister examlsss his discretion to ban a publication under 5 7(1) PFFA. 42 Tne Malenly Cmam is of me lellewlng VIEW‘ (ll ii tne legislature has provided lor an exercise of sxecullve dlscrellen In a statute (statute the legislature nas lhe prerogallvs lo exclude a ngnl oi hsanng in the Slalule belore tne executive decision is made‘ unless Parliament nas excluded a right or hearing VI tne statute, ellner expressly D! by necessary implication tn the statute. a right oi nearing IS implied by our case law. This is clear lmm the lolltwnng judgment oi Rala Allan Shah FJ (as nis Malesly than was] in tne Federal Conn case of lmua Pulgarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Selig [1917]2 MLJ152‘at15A— -in my opinion, in. nu. ofnalmallustlct tnal no man may a. zarldamnld unheard should -pply tn wiry clu wnuu nn Indlvlttunl I: mus-ly zlhetud by In ntmlnlx-tnllvt Milan no niatm wmlrler It Is lahtflod '/ualelar, ‘it-mi. iudie -, or "lt'Iminislntiw" or wnntnu ur not in. uubllnfi slum. .n.l... pm-/Islarl Int . hurlng." (emphasis added): t2) an example alPar1lamerlI’s exclusion of the rlghl of hearing in a statute is demonstrated in tna judgment atlne Federal Coun .4 in xKdhDRVnUIUDF7s1lanCA wane Sum ...n.. will he used M mm in. nllnlnnllly sun; dun-mm n. .nune mu dehvered by sm Norma Yaanob FCJ (as she men was) m Mordln H] znk-nu (mnbaunn Kolul Poll: Knlanlan) A And. v Mohd Noov Abduflah [2004] 2 cm 777‘ at 754‘ as fullows s “R-ndlnq m. pmvlxlans ul [Polrcl (Conduct and Dlxclnllnel (Junior pouoe Dmcers and conmms) Rlvulltluns mo) rn /as um.-ry. lsee no mqutnmon: mu emidta mu nxpandcnt 1:: ha lnformtd ol the oounouny or Mm Ming dlsmlssnd o. ndumd In ....n In an vuvl n. In oonwened 9! my or an. enmu pflhmd Janina: n:.n In nu»... ma show em. me. or mo. la we start of mo disciplinary nnqulry. man I: no provision impoxfrvg a similar oonoauon at man pmenm by nu. 15(1) of nu ma Realthlvonr. Sine: um um: R-gmonons nnpm. no duly an the 1:: Appcl/ant to .nro.vn m. ruponfltnt :2 the urn nppommlly nf rim Inlulilrood or hrs omnrou: o. nductlon In nnk, ma 1sxapp-mmunno:bo .. mhnvu o-pnwo mo nwormm or any nroeemm. mmoss .. m... rlrmul bl nny Drum of duty wnuv none ulsts In raw." (emphasis added), and (3) as correctly submllled by Encwk Ahmad How, a mmpanscn between s 711) FFPA [wmon does um provide [or a dgm d1 heanng on Vnleresled Parties |PubhcaIiun)] on me one hand and ss my and was PPPA(whvch have expresswy convened a right ov hearing on Incoresasd Famas (Puhlncamonn on me mher hand. reveals Ihe nnenuon or we legislature to exdude a ngm ov hearing tar Interested Parties (Puh\ical\on) bevme the Munster makas a decwswon pursuant to s 1(1) FPPA .5 (Farliamnnfs Exclusion of Right av Hearing [socuon 7(1) PPPA]) 4:5. The Mammy Coram has not overlooked me Mlawmg ‘augment of Abu Bakar Jals .IcA (as he then was) m lsllmlr: Ronalssancn From [2020] 5 ML.) 399. a [27] to [29]. [31]. [M]. [39]. [M] to [46]. [49], [so] and [31]. ‘[271 AM! mmmna me Issue: r-Ind, m would uy mu: an nnly twa impamnl paints, mm ... mu fnnus Ind Mamlnm mat would » sumcfem on ollecllvely delecmme um. um (alts m.u..s»an 12s] Fin: I: m. .ma...:.u. rm um mm. m. Nlgh com um um nsnondunl most In zvold m. Luuu mu nu 7.-pamm nu-.1 to zamplr wvth tn. onto! or wllscavlry mad- by the man Cnurl Itulf my n :5 undispllredllval becnuse olme am aldiscavuy, Ml am:/m Ir enlltlad to m. JnkIm’s lawns And me rucammund-Illons mu vommultx or m. Publlallrrm Md aunnl: rm Conmzl Dlvlslon. um I: also no dlsm. my part of the .IlkIm's Mporls Ind me recommtnduions ma cammonls olllre Publfcnflon and Qurnrm: rm Control Dlvlsflon wan rm/tr pmvfdld to m: Iwullant. And in unit»! bu dupulod mu: m aumny ml--/Irv! documlntx blcluu m. rupondtm rm: rvlitd on m. sum to Issut m. omon 2!!-cling khl Duhllcnllonx 511 sum: In mind me above auouflon, we m «I the 0Dtm‘un mu m. ruxporrdlnfil -mm. of dlscrudton cannot be «.1. rm. :. bacnun m. nlpondim Mind to snow the ncommendntlons um comments of u.. Publlcuion ...a aurinlc rm Contra! nmmn, nut to menflon parloftm rlpons as ny Jnknn. As Inalmea nnese comments Ind reemnmenunuans wan llkm Into lcoounl by 29:. nenzonaen: won me were win luuod. And 1: clnnat n. avor-umpluxlsld mu Nlyh Cour! nllowod Ina drscovory ol mm commlms Ind nenmmandltlons for the -pp-Ir-n2. vn as paint»: oul, Inn - MN not Pmvldvd lo we -pp-4:-nx by m. mpana-nz rm hllun Ia xhow mm hog: me question whumuriris WI in ms um mm Mar Inc same mm Iaknn fnla account ny Mt :-mnaonr mm Issumv mu ordors. 1: also ms me quosuon wmmu mu sun. is avun nn-mm to In consrdnnd. sun mun slriaus is tin susnician um um. dacumlnu flu not Ixisk .1 nu rne sum em: olmls nmunus In 3071044: doubt nherhel Morn was a ru! mmso cl dlrcnllnrv by me respondnnl ns riquimd byLv s.n,, 5:11 And Wadmsbury Corp ms) w m al 2n. 1/law am we mu. mending um nan. Wofluzflon 9! an ducumlnts main menu me app“: to p- ll/awed, nu /us by we run IN: is . nrlnu: fuuv wnizh was not naunma .: nu by um um. Court and me mspomlunt (:9! Nonelnlless, we could no nlmde m Inumel lmpofllnr porn: ulcurmntlon mu 1: malarial In cane/usryery alsposrng tn- tnpnl, without mu 71006 La Iddrvu nu ma rum ralud. ms runes to me suhmlsslcm ngnrdlng en. nghl to bc ht rd bclon Me responaenvs omels were Ixsuect As lndlcttod, mm is um nu arspum rm: war was nez mama no mo appeunnn 144] n.... ;. nu such pmvision in (ppm. rn...:e.. n. comlny to Is decision, the Fndornl Court wu canfimny iuelfvu me mmmy provision u narrated above. me Federal Cami Mon am not an/Imaku e ru//nu afvflnoralapvlfcallnn mar Ilme ls rm nun: ol n..nn,, wIIIn mu nm /5 not rmod as . pmcedunl mqulnm-nr. In rm without such Itllukcry ccmshlnus seen In Lee Kew snnq, . rlnmalnurrng n . awe n and rummum: mm mu would be accorded (see 1... Yak Sung .. Sumlrlnjayn Puimldmltlrv Pundldlkln 5. Altar [1996] 1 ML] 251; [46] Fumm. the right of nurvna I: always available and unlhrinnd w.-mom Nullirmy it ta ta mm In any ummy provisions. rm Fodural cow! was char an this principle In Kelua Pemnnh Kasum v No Kwan Sena 119771 zmu 152 . my )1; Imilntud um I: no dispula mu m. rlsporrdonl and ..m.:.. any right «mm... In m. .p...u.... 5...... Issuing the nrdars. Tnls Hqnx mm mm m... vlvan Iollowma tn- ducltlun mm. Tmnlbn, mm nsnoct ma man cum‘! crud In ;a»....:..., L.. K... s..., ...u not Iollowlny Ha Kwan Sum 1491 Following the -have, what should have 5.... done by 2». nwcnaanr 75 no viva ma rum .1 many lo the -weum. Am. this Is plvvldnd mm. mpemm tons/Hurt mmls ma by the -pmllnm, only an... would Um ..q..m...om 1;! ...x....: I-mice be mum [501 Mrs: «mm: In mm fr 2». Iar!lPPPA1Itulfdou not ny um . riyhl 0/ hearing shuuld bu utlmiod. rm right or n ulna can be uxcludud .5 sun In 5 59 of the Immigrlnan Act nsws: pm JP smners. am since ms was nal the use far 1». an, M: appouam mun D1 gmn mu nan: ornnnnv. [51] Bind a. .11.». ........: nfmv:-Id, with ...,,.c:, m. :..mm mm Caufl lady: snarl on two mm»... mm, 1.. mp... or ma non! for ma r-mun-m a. show m. rolovanl dccumonls and also In mp-er olihe mod to am mo nun: 94 h mg m tin .,...u...z (emphasis added) A5. 46 o. 47. Wnh rsspacl, me Malorily Coram is or me lallawrng oplnlun regardlng Islamic mnaluanca Frnrll: 11) in lslarnlc Rcnnlisancn Front‘ lns Minis\er an: no: comply wlln a pnnr dlsoovery order of the mgr. cam, on lrns ground alone, me M lslsfs Dsclsiun under s my FPPA should be quashed, and 12) learned counsel lrl Imrnlc Ronaissancs From did nol draw me courrs allenllon la Parllarnenvs Excluslon of Rignl cl Hearlng [Sectlan 7(1) PPPA] In View of Parliamerlfs excluslan or Rlghl of Hearlng [Sec1ll:lrl my PPPA] (please refer in the above paragraph 42), the learned HC Judge had erred ln dscldlng lnal ms Responuenls had a mrlstllullonal fight in be heard before the Earl wa: lssued by the 1‘ Appellant (E“ Appialable ENVY). ulg Minister nlvo ronnn for Han? The Gazette Nallncallan (Earl) had expressly provlded lor lne 3 Grounds (Ban) Furlnerrnore, MHA‘s Ieller aalaa 30.12.2020 In the 1" Respcndem had glven me 1-‘ Appellanrs reasons rm lne Ban. Acoordlngly. me learned HCJ had oonlrnmaa a plan error ouacl by denidlng lnal me 1“ Appellant am not pmvlde any reason la: the Bal1|7"' Appeslabla Error) Migfig Decision The Majomy coranl is unable to mid lnal — AB m me1"AppeIlanlhad oammmea any error of law regirdlng the Ban. ¢2) there was pmcedumx wmpropnely commmed m respem afths v’ Anpsuws wssuanca al me Bun [man Is no‘ ngm to be heard under 5 my PPPA » pvease refer co ms shove paragraph 42] (3) me Ean was \rva\mna\ m me same man no usasoname Mxmsler wamd have imam me aan, arm ms Ban was so dIsprL7pur1\ona(eIh2I| me mun shuuld xssue a csmomn mderlc quash the Ban (4) In vsew ov me 1" to 7" Appealame Ennis. me Majmnty Cumm n mnwamea lu - 41) allow This Appeax, and (2) sex aswde ma HC‘s Dacvsinn‘ and (3) order ma Rexpendenls to pay to ma Appellants costs m 2 mm 0! RM15.0UU on here and new DATE: 11: DECEMBER 2023 woue KIAN KHZONG Judge coun av Appgax, Malayua an (5) (7) (8) (9) paragraph 29 GOJ ~ there was no support for the 1" Appellarlfs avermsnl that humasaxuallly IS a placflue DI eullure which is ndl accepted by me enlire society cl Malaysia and is an ‘aliens’ in all me religions H1 lms cdunny. The Respondenls had provided an expert opinion by Dr. wan wel Hslen, an Adlurm Lecturer (Religion and PMOSDDHYD at Meihudisl College, Kuala Lumpur (D7. Wall‘! Expm Oplnlon). The 1" Appellnnl did ncl adduce any expert evidence id rebut Dr. Wan‘: Expert opinion, paragraph 31 504 » ma HG relied on a ludgmenl ol lhe Indian Supveme Court in N. Radhakrilhnan @ ludluxrlalinnn Vnreniekal v Union ol India [2o1s17 MLJ (Madras Law Journal) 628 (RndhIkrlshnnn's Can) wlilcn decided an me appllcallorl at Arllcle 19(2) el Ihe Indian canslildadn llc), paragraph 32 ecu . there must be an avidenaal basis for the1"AppelIan\'sjus|iflcal.icn dime Ban; paragraph 33 cos - me I" Appellanl had "In lac! dissected significant excerpts“ of me Bank said to he likely in be prejudi all in public order, moraliiy and public interest. such an approach was nol an objecllve assusnnenl. The lexls VI Ihe Book wnlcn gave ednlexl in me passages in me Bock relerred \u by lne 1"AppeHanL had been ommsd by me 1-‘ Appellant. The passages In ma Book ieraned in by me 1-‘ Appellanl were nol ‘sfgniiicanf because ins nassages weve contained in 42 am oi 226 pages dime Book; For me Appellants: For the Respanuenrs Ennik Ahmad Hamr om Hambaly @ Arm (Sem‘oI Federal Counsel) 5 Enclk Mohammad Ss/lshud-1m bin Md. All (Federal Counsel) (Attornsy—GsneraI Chambers. Puma/aya) Encrk Edmund son Tai Soon A Enork Mlcnael Chsah Em T/an (Msssu AmerBON) (to) paragraphs 34 and as GOJ — by vlflue ul Articles 5(1) and am at the Federal Coristlfullorl (Fct. the Respondents have a constitutional rlghl to be heard belore the Earl was imposed by the 1"Appel|an|; (11) paragraph 31 GOJ —the learned Hc Jtmpe relied on. among others, the Calm v1 Al-weal's declstpri in Islamic Ronallunla Front and v the Mlnmor of Home Alfulrs [2020] 5 MLJ 399 to arrive at the HC‘s Decision; (12) paragraph 38 GOJ — by Virtue at! the claetnne at legitimate expectation, the Respondents had a right tp pa heard palore the sari was imposed by the 1" Appellant. Fundamental llperttes guaranteed in Articles 5 in la FC encompass human nghls principles oarttalrieu tn the universal Declaration al Human Rights (|JDHRj read with 3 4(4) oi the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 itinerant (13) paragraph 40 GOJ - as the Respondents were not given a nght to he heard batons the imposition ol the Ban, the Earl was “lrldefenslb/5'. and my pamgraphs 41 In 43 GOJ - ms1" Appellant did not give any reason (or the Ban. E Inttas 13 The tplltwvlng questions will be decided in ihts Maionty Judgment; (1) can me sour! review me nieriis ei ine exercise of me Minisier of Horne Affairs‘ (Minmeri uisipreiipnary pawsr under s 7(ii PPPA no pvpnipii any “publicaliari” (defined wiueiy in s 2 PPPA) iuilnieuws Dol:lsiulI)"'i (2; ii the court can mwsw me meme at me Minieiers Decision, what is me appiicame new In this regard - (pi wneinsr me ocurl can reiy on e (ii Indian ceees on ireenon. ovepeecn which ere based an Article 1912) ic; and (Ii) UDHR and s 4(4) HRCMA - in review me Miriisvers Decision: (is) wneiner ine Minisier is requireu io cunsider me ipnpwing nianers before making me Minisiers Decision - iii me vac: lllal no untoward insiasnc has arisen pin 01 the priming. sale. pircuieiipn and possession 01 the pupiicaiinn: iii) me number pr eppies of me pubilcation wiiien nee been published, spldi c cuiaied and Possessed by Malaysllns: me View anaier response by Meiaysian society or any pen merepv |o me publimlion, ii any; and iiv) any expert opinion regarding me pubiicsiion and ii there is an expert view an rne puniicsiion (in Expert Opinion), is me Minisisr obhged to pmcure anumsr experl up ion In suppun nr ism ms 1" Expert OPINION. 13) wnsinei ins Minisrer is required by Aniciss 5(1) and an) FC 1»: give a ngiii at nearing In any person who - (H) is “i'mersstsd' in a publication, and (b) nss a isg-iirriaie expectation wiin regard to the publica on neiars iris Minister's Dacision is made This issue emails 2 comparison between s 7(1) FPPA an ins one hand and ss 7(3) and in PPPA on the other nan nd (4; ma me Minislar give» any reason ioi ms Minisrers Decision’! GROUNDS FOR MAJORITY DECISION F. wriemg; 9g 3 ggn rlvilw nrnrics nil Mrnimrs Decision 14. We reproduce beiaw Articles «(aim 5(1), BU), ID(l)(a). (zxai FCV the ueiiniiinri ol "pub/lcsllan" In s 2 PPPA and s 7 PFPA ‘E A.-rim 4 £2’; rm vllldlry nllny Inw smu narba quulionod an the ymund um — 1») it imposes mn .-mmam n m mcntlnrmd in Article um; but man resmcrlons wee: not deemed necesslry or upedlenl ny Pmllmenl for mu purposes mumomd /n mnuwcn Arivds 5 uwty arm p-mm m we PM-sun um: 50 ac;-mu: of ms M. or pusm/ may mo in lceordlncl wim law Amde 9 Emuury 0/ All persons ue equu befurv rm law And unmed to m -«um pm:-c1/an emu raw mm 117 Fnodam alspucn‘ assembly and amaanon (U Sub]-ct no Claus-s I2). ta). 13»; am: W — rs; -wry =/mun has In rvqm m Incdorn al Jpancn ma axpmsslan, :2; " Parflam-nrmly bylawimmuv (5) on 1». ngm; canlenrd by puIgIlph(I}o." CI:-4:: m, such nsmcflons u n deems necesslry ar median: In the Interest ul the secufllv at me roamuon at any but mmor, M-ndvy NI-rllons wm: olhnr co-umtu. Public 1314-! m mnury And nmrcuom dnslgnad to mm: the prlvlltgos of Puflamum of army lcglshltvn Assembly or to pmvm nouns: com-mm ul coufl. delnmalron, or men-mm to my alum. E .r 2 “Dahlia-tian” Include: 7 la! a Dummenl, newspapsn book anapsnoa/caa

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

DJ-83-984-10/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH THU ZAR WAI

Principle of Sentencing-Cosideration-Immigration Act 1959- Section 6(1)(c) of the same act- Mitigation Factors- Aggravating Factors- Public Interest- Plea of Guilt-Rampancy of such case

19/12/2023

Tuan Mohd Izdham Naim bin Che Ani

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=96f926e0-84cf-4cfc-b8e2-5b70925b5d26&Inline=true

Mahkamah Majistret Pasir Mas, Kelantan Darul Naim Page 1 of 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI PASIR MAS DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA DJ-83-964-09/2023: PENDAKWARAYA -lwn- YEE YEE SOE dibicarakan bersama DJ-83-984-10/2023: PENDAKWARAYA -lwn-THU ZAR WAI GROUND OF JUDGMENT 1. These are my grounds for my decision for this case. The charge meted against the Accuseds as follows:- Bahawa kamu pada 13.09.2023 jam lebih kurang 6.30 petang, bertempat di Tepi Jalan Kampung Bukit Lata Jeram Perdah, Pasir Mas, di dalam Daerah Pasir Mas, di dalam Negeri Kelantan, telah didapati berada di Malaysia tanpa sebarang pas perjalanan yang sah, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan dibawah seksyen 6(1)(c) Akta Imigresen 1959/63 dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 6(3) Akta yang sama. 2. For these cases, the Deputy Public Prosecutor move to this court be heard together. The charge was read by Burmese interpreter, Mr. Than Tin. Both pleaded guilty on the charge and understood it consequences. 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. See New Tuck Shen v PP [1982] 1 MLJ 27. Having due regards to rampancy of such crime where the accused(s) as illegal immigrant has wildly entered Malaysia, a custodial sentence will be such a reminder for those not to break our law. Thus, public interest is best served here when a deterrent sentence is given. This Court find the Accused(s) guilty of the charge and sentenced them for 5 months imprisonment effective sentence date. This sentence is properly recorded. DATED 17 DECEMEBER 2023 ……………………………………... MOHD IZDHAM NAIM BIN CHE ANI Magistrate Magistrate’s Court Pasir Mas, Kelantan Darul Naim Decision: 7 November 2023 Parties:- Deputy Public Prosecutor: Ms. Mahfuzah Hamizah Mohd Arif / The Accused(s) CRIMINAL LAW- Principle of Sentencing-Consideration-Immigration Act 1959- Section 6(1)(c) of the same act- Mitigation Factors-Aggravating Factors-Public Interest-Plea of Guilt-Rampancy of such case 19/12/2023 10:28:19 DJ-83-984-10/2023 Kand. 11 S/N 4Cb5lsE/Ey44ltwkltdJg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal n.I—a3—9aa—13 2023 Kand. 11 nmzrawuxm ma a.a.s a<.a.aa.a mm Nmm 19,1;/222a,:-A a DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISIREI nu PASIR ms DALAM MEGERI KELANTAN DARUL mm: MALAVSIA D4-auaaansaznz ENDAKWARAVA -lwn- vs: vs: so: mmcmm heunmn DJ-33-§M—In/202:: PEMDAKWARAVA -Iwn»TMlJ um wm enouuo onuncuzur 1 These are my qmundsmr my decasaen ma mas case The chavge meted agamsl Ihe Aaauaeas as VaHawx— Banaw: mm»: 12 1792022 yam mam kwlrlv szunmng mmaaa .a raw ./alan Kama-mg Bmar L Jaum M.» Pun Mas m .1 nm Daemn Pun Mas mlalam mm mm." aa.a .mm..a... m Mmysa: not saw-ng Dlspflnnrnnnn wry s.» aw»-g flemmm am aaaa nrelamnxan “mm mam gehyan smml Mu: Wwesm assmm bdelvallmkmw ma." smaaa firm AMI Vmflsnma 2 Far these cassa. ma Deputy Pubhc Fmsecmm move lo mas onuvl be heard lngelher The charge was am by Burmese mlevpveler Mr naaaanaa Bum paamu gmlly an ma charge and understand an cnnsequenoes Undev paaaacapae M senlencmg aa :5 onnsadeved alter considering an elhev Vacls such as am. place me name M In: case and vampanty M such cnme See New mu Shen :4 rr [19432] 1 ML.A 27 Havmg due regard: tn vampancy M such cvame when lhe .accused(s) as mega! aaamaagaam has wfldly enlened Mmaysua a custndm semen-ze wan be such a vemamenm Ihme ml to mask om aaw Thus. pubhc mteresl as best sewed have when a delevvenl semen-ze as qwan mas Cnuvl Vmd ma Accusedqsj gmlly av Ihe chavge and sentenced lhem M 5 months ampaasaaamam efleclwe sentence dale naas sentence as property vecmded nnzn 1 7 nscsmsasn 2n2a «gang» Mono mm»: um um r:nE mu Magasuaaa Magliwatn a CmmPai|v Mas Kaaanaaa nama Namv Damsmn 7 Nvvlmhev 202: PI Deputy Puo/4c Pmsnculor M: Mahluzzn Hannah Mum! Am /Tlvg A1:r:us9r.1!s/ cmumu uw Pnvmulral Eenlenrxng Cunnnerabmv Vmnl/gvaM:nAz! V959 Sacbarv smvcr Mme Esme ac» Mrbgahon Faclms Agyvavamw Fanvms maa wares! Plus .» Gum Ramvancy almch aasa Page 1 M 1

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-24NCvC-1346-07/2023

PEMOHON AS-SALIHIN TRUSTEE BERHAD RESPONDEN MUHAMMAD AIZARUDDIN BIN KAMARUDDIN

Caveat – private caveat lodged by a beneficiary of deceased’ estate – trustee’s application to remove caveat – deceased’s Deed of Gift and Trust (Deklarasi Hibah) declaring gift and trust of a specific property in favour of his wife – trustee corporation appointed under Deed of Gift and Trust – trustee corporation was given a Power of Attorney by the deceased proprietor – whether a beneficiary has locus standi to challenge the Deed of Gift & Trust signed by the deceased proprietor – whether a beneficiary has locus standi to lodge private caveat on the title of deceased’s land – balance of convenience – whether private caveat should be removed – whether a beneficiary has a caveatable interest in the deceased estate’s land.

19/12/2023

YA Tuan Tee Geok Hock

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d90befa5-87b0-4e03-a760-9b9a3c084cfb&Inline=true

19/12/2023 15:07:17 BA-24NCvC-1346-07/2023 Kand. 18 S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N pe8L2bCHA06nYJuaPAhMw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal aA—2mcvc—13As—n7/2023 K; 19/12/mu men coum or MALAYA IN sum ALAM IN ms sure or SELANGOR DARUI. ENSAN, MALAYSIA ORIGINAYING summons N0: BA~2ANCvC-134!-01Izn13 DALAM PERKARA MENGENAI KAVEAT PERSENDIRIAN PERSERAHAN NO‘ as/zuza YANG uIMA.suKxAu PADA 5.1.2023 KE ATAS HAKMILIK um; DIKENALI SEBAGAI Hsul 7m, P1 1123:, uuKIM uLu KELANG. DAERAH coma“. NEGERI SELANGOR DAN DALAM PERKARA MENGENAI szxsvsu 317(1) KANUN YANAH NEGARA1s65: DAN DALAM PERKARA MENGENAI ATURAN 1 KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH zmz asrwazu A5»SALIH|N musvss EERHAD (s7n3a1-D) PLAINTIFF om uuummnn A|ZARUDD|N am KAMARUDDIN (IDENTITV um: NO. 741223.14.5m) . nsrsnmm sw PIEL2hCHAU5nYJuaPAhMw -ms Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm éfi nd. 18 ,5.’/‘J! sngyugg DE gynsulzuv (cunullsuon M csvut) lmiaducllon [1] The nelenuem has appealed egelns: «ms Cwrfs aeusian dated 241:: 202: men allowed me Flelnlnrs zppllcalinrl lo cancel me pnvaxa lodges by me uelenaanl 121 ms Plalnllfl has been eppmned as me ellemey ol Che Isle Kamaruddln Din Abdullsh Mlmlr (“lhe Deoeased“) pursuant la a Power er Anomey aalea 5.9.2020 rme PA1 sxeculea by me Danaassd and also we lmslee m reaped or me Sublem Pmpeny purxuanl lo 2 Deelerellan at Gill I Trusl Deed described as 'DekIarIsI HIhah' la] The Delendzm, me is also me csweslor, IS one Mine bansficlarles ellne eslele elme Deeeesed [41 On 15 7 2m me Plalmllf ahlalrlsd s ersnl n1F'roba|e m rsspacl al me sslele nllha Deceasad uw oi nrlvm cavun [5] secuon 32:4 oflhe Nellenal Land Code pravloes as fellows (1) The persons and bodlss at wnose lnslanoe a pnvalo mveel may be smevsd am— (a) any person atbody clermlng true 10, at enyreglsn-sole mleresl in any allanmed land or um1Mdsl1 share In any allellatsd land or any ngm to such we or lnlamsl. sw puBL2bCHAOEnYJu:PAhMw -use s.n.l n-vlhnrwm es flied m mm s. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .num wrul ([7) any pslsan orbady clsimlng to us beneficially enm/ed um» any (ms! aflactlna any such land ov Imsrssr; and (C) we guarmsn or next inand orany minor. [6] In Ina case oI Lupglgl 'Il.ribu(urI (Ill) Sdn Bhd v. Tun NnvTIng a. Anar [1995] 3 cu 5201199511 MLJ 719, me noun oIAopeaI laid down we principle and pmasdura oI appIIcaIIon Io Ismava a privaua caveat as InIIaws-- In cansrderma an applfcslron rm Ina rvmaval al a cavean , me pmcsaum to be adopted should be a srmws and summary one A: the mu stage, me cowl wm examine Ine grounds expnssed In ms applmanorl fur the mean In see whether may snow .3 cav/salable In1amsI. Once the com IS satisfied msI lhs cavs.amr’s L‘/arm amounts In Iewla n czwsatabla Inrerau. 7! must men go on to comm whsllvsr me claim discloses a serum]: quasnon menu/Ig 3 mar Ana mess Iwo stages have been massed, ms com mus! dsmde where Ins balance ofconvenmnce hos,‘ Whmhnr ma Dllcnflml as mminmy hn my ummm inlaull [71 In cm Pluik Nar V. Fzrlim Iaroponm Sdn and [mm 4 cu 39: the Faaam Coun held as Ioflwws “There Is considerable aurhomy on It»: now and mo answers to me quesuons posed are to be found In the House ov Louis dectsrons In Low sumwey v. Attorney General. and Dr. Eamsmfs Homes Nammal Incorporated Assocrsnon v Commrssronerslor Spectal Purposes aims Income Tax Am and m me Pnvy counw sw puBL2bCHAOEnYJu:PAhMw -um Sum! ...m.mm be used M mm .. nrW\ruU|Y mm: dun-mm VI] .num WMI aacrsmn In Cammtsztonsr al Srsnu) Duttas (Queensland) V Livingston (19551 AC 594 Although mm was won all concmm: wttn Ivstato smuston, tn. fiflnclplos mm: In usually rwamod as using nppttc-an oqunlly to ma naruro or . ban-ficisrys right on intsstasy. [Empnasts adcleclj. ma basic prtlvcip/e appears from ma asmamys sass, where tt was ataany stated wnan ma tmaonat estate ula testatw nas been my sdmtnrstamt by nts execmovs and ma nat rasraua asoenstnest lhs resldusry tagataa ts enmlsd to have me mstrtua as st) ascartatned. wttn any acmtsd fnooms, lranslamad and paid 10 mm. but urml ms: ttme ne has na pmparly tn any saemhc mvestment fcnnmg pan at ma estate or/A ma /ncome mm! any such investment, and com corpus and tnmme are me pmpeny ottne exscutavs and as appttcstate by mam as a mtxsd fund for me purposes cl atimtrvslrsborl. We mum also rater In a passage 77! '5xecutnrs, Admmsuralars and Probate (17 Ean ), 1993' by wt//rams, Mammal and Sunnecks wmcn stated at p. toss A tesrctuaty mates has nu mtsmst m a defined pen of the estate unttt ms Iestdus 5: ascsrtatnect, nm can mama be ssmbed lo unascsnatrtsd tastaua ms right, which is of cnursa tmmnissibt-, Is In nan tn: -stat. propcrly ldministeted and nppliod in: his band?! whvn the admin/suattnn I: complete. rho ttght or n benoficilry zlllmlnq on a tow tntm-cy is stmltar. except that he taxes wide! a statutory trust Io! save and mrlvalstcn '[EmpItflsts added]. sw p-aL2ncHAuanvJu:PAnMw Nata Sum ...ns.. M“ as as... m mm as mVfl\ruU|Y MW; dun-mm Va .nam Wm! [5] [91 Based on me above cammenlsnas‘ founded no cam on ms ans/ogaus pvlncip/5 oi/awconcemrng tsstata succession, :1 rs our conetusm (ha! in law - bvmficialy undu an rnmucy has no lntlnsr or proporty In ma ponanal estlu or - docund pusan my me admlnmmvon at thc mm‘: esmu I: compma um dlsmbuflnn mm accord/ng In me law a/ ulauvnuuon ol me Inlmme estate. " m Futuristic Builder: Sdn and v. Hlrindor Slngh I Dr: [2005] 1 MLRA 57 me Fadara\ Cmm ham As comm: “[16] .. ., ms maamg pass on mrs rs lhe case ofchar Phark Hav v Famm Pmpenles sun 5/14. 119971 1 MLRA sea HD9713 MLJ me, /1397]: cm 393‘ 119w3AmR 210:. (171 /n Ihal cuss, lo//owing 5 number ofauthonrres, ma Federal cam uavsu ma /«gm poswon as Ia/laws: Based on me above oommsntsrras, Inundsd no doubt an analogous plmcrpls ollaw concammg leslats succsssmn, yr 1: our cmduskzn that in law, a benenuary undsr Inlestacy has no Interest or property In lhs Wrsonal estate ofa dscsased person m-mime sdmm/:1/at/on arms /mars estate rs complete and uismuuan made accommg to lholsw oldlslribmfon oltne Inlostma amaze.- The bsnefiuarys lack of cavsalahls mluvest over me estate‘: land helole me aompxenon or me flismbulmn is a\so rsalfimled by vannus decwded cases 0! me nppaflala nouns war me years n is wa\I»sa|I\ad Vaw ma| 2 henefiotary has no capacuy ar locus standtlo ac: on mam ur snlar Ink: any kansacllon on man: at me aeeeasews esme. u !s emm ms axsculnr (m case oweslala mam 5 sw p-BL2bCHAOBnYJu:PAhMw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [W1 W] [121 [13] onhe deoeasedl arthe edmtmstzelor upon the lseuance orthe Lener olAdmlnls1raIlun (in eeee estate death at the deceased) wha hes the capaclty at low: etandl to act on hehell er enter lrtto ar\Y tvehseenoh on behalf Mme deeeaseda estate. In our ptassm ease, lt ls eleer that as ms dete etlodglhg lhe private caveat and as at the date of heanng :21 this sult, ms Defendant remetned e person who elauned to beonecflha berlsfiazrles allhe neoeaeede estate. the Devendent hes not been appointed as the exat:u|or or adm teeter ol the Deceased: estate‘ and the Deceased‘: estate has not been dlslrihutad yet In me elrmntelanees, thus Court held that the Delendant has he eavealeble mteres1 VI the stlmad lend On lhls ground alone, the Delendervts pmwls caveat should be cancelled and removed Further ur allama|lva4y, in view al the lac! met the sublecl land has ceased to es part at the deeeeeede estate by vlmle ol the rnlst need er nekleresl Hlbah. the Rsspondsm hes he basis er locus slarldl In ledge eny pnvete caveat egernst lhe lrusl pmpeny which does not lenn pen anhe deoeeseds estate, The Respondent. as e beneficlary el the deoeaseds a-stake, hes no cewealahle lhteresl ln leepectota land when does noflofm Dari ellhe deeeeseds estate aelenes ol cnlwcnllnu ln eurpreeentcese, there is en axlsti Trust Gm er Deklarasl Nlbah dated 5.9.2020 by the deceased pl-uprie|ovMlo declared me Irustof the sublact land ln lavour of the wife Aslah blntl Zaknrla as the slN puBL2t:CHAOBnYJu:PAhMw we s.n.l nnvlhnrwlll be used m mm has nflmhnllly sum. dun-vlnrrt vta eFluNG Wml [11] I‘ 5] [15] I17] [1 al benefidary‘ and apnununq me Plilnmho be|I19lrus|as zxxporalion holding me bsnefiI:\a\ "names: In Irusl far me neceeeesre saw wue [pat pages 13 — 21 of me Psainmrs Afidavn m Rep\y Ill Enclosure 5}. ms Tmsl Dead executed bylhe deneaseu has been reglsosrad mm the Hlgh Conn and me Land Ofics. [sea pm pages 1n 0! Plammre Amaevxc Vn supnon in Endoeure 2}. Once we sub]ec1 land has been valldly declared by me deceased propnamr as (ms! prupafly n vavaur cc 2 beneficiary. the sumeu wand ceased m be can nnne deosawzfs as1ala. Hera, me Responaenrs basis for Vodglng pnvsve caveat Is me! h: was one of me benencianes mm fleoeaserfs astaln and (hat ms subject lam: was nane septnczman onne Deceased and ms was Azanah amn Jam [pal page 79 enne ueoemenre Aflidevh m Reply, Enckzsum A1 However. Ihe Dseaassd has declared a Power av Anumey tn nppmnz me Flawrmflcoruaralmn In nandla and deal mm me subjam land. The max cream in me Deklarasx Hlbah and me powers ounrenea ny lhl Power 01 Mtomey have In awed nlamd ma P|ain\if1— corparahon \n ma Dnsmon of rruseee and Altomey In raswect ov me eumea land. sw v~aL2ncHAmsnvJuaPAnMw -we smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm e. nflmnnflly MW: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm [191 me Power «:1 Aloomay has not bean dnallengod VI any mun proceeding The alien of me naiendanrs cayeat is in stop me Piamlwoomoralion «rent exercising any cl its powers aria iunctins under in Power aulnarney In respect oftha sumed land. :20] rne haienee oicerwenienee is in tamer er eaneeiiation oitne Dnvala caveat so that tne Pieintiiveorparanion is VI a ready pesmon In perfonn nu dullls amt rates as tn: Attorney under trre Power at Altnmey and aka undertne rzeuieresi moan :21} In tna etrcurnstaneeai tne Re!Dnndan|‘s caveat Is oraeed te be caneetiee and removed so as in vaoiiltate the tmstee eerperatrons partennance M its trustee ubhgalinn to preeera tire transfer of me tntst nrnpertyto tne belIaficiary‘s name [221 Mereeyer, irern the perspective oi trust prvpsny, tne balance of eenyenienee Is In tamer ereaneeiiation ettna Respaneenre caveat se as to anablelhs|ms1se Dorvoraliun te perform fls lrus| obflgations pursuant to tne Tmsi Dead [23] tune Defendants: a beneficiary nus any genuine grieyanae agains| ine rnanner ur extent in wnien tne P|ain|flf—curparanon exercise its powers as tne Attorney under ttre Power nlAl1omey or as trustee uneertne Tmsl sin (uektresi mean)‘ nia remsdy rs eenainty not by lodging e pnuate caveat ente ma subject land n peat_2ecHMianvJuaPAnMw nae s.n.i n-vihnrwm be used e yaw ms nrwirrnflly sun. dun-vinrrl vta arium Wm! [N] [25] [25] Dnmngu lorlallim to wllliauw cavul Under 5. 329 oi me Nalzonal Land Code. a pemzn who wnmglully or without reasnnzhle cause vans in wilnaiaw any pm/ale caveat snail be Ilablelo pay compensalian whu merebysullals any damage or loss. This coun finds lnal lna Delendanl snaula wllhdraw ma priyala caveal upon a raauesl mm in: Plalrmll, and any «allure Io wllhdraw me pnvala cavaatafler me Plainlllrs such request is a «allure which is wmnglul orwllhaul reasonable cause. in me elrcunimanoea, me Plaimiflls smllled |u hung a separall suit lor damage: (W any) againsl me Delenaanl lur wmrlglully or wilneul iaasanalila cause «ails la wnnaraw any pnyale caveal cons of lull [27] [28] The gerleml Me lnal costs lallow the avail! applies In «ms me In lna nvenlises, ails Calm also urdars ma Delendarll In pay cost: ai RM5,u0l) co Ihe Plainlm, sulzlecl lo allocalor Conclusion [291 In comlusian, nus Own an 2A1u 2023 mam me canoellalinn a1 me pnvala cavaal on ma lallawing lenns: m Eahawa Kaveal l>-rmalnan No 39/2023 yang didaflalkan pads 612fl23 1-Kayaal Iaasbul“) clsh Dalanuan di alas 9 sin puBL2bCHAOEnYJu:PAhMw ‘Nab! s.n.i ...u.mn be used M yaw .. nflfllnnflly MIN: dun-mm n. mum WM! nananah yang dipegang dv hawah Na HSM HBIVY11238‘ Mumm Ulu Keling‘ Daeran Gombak. Negan 5e\angor Darul Ehsan Ilu 1-Hananan levsebul‘) dwbalalkan‘ ¢2) Kebebasan dibsnkan kepada Flainm danlakau benefisxari unmk memrankan ssm prusiding penflawan (‘assessment pwoeedmg') yang nmsmgan (emadap Defendan unluk |ujuan penflaian gamimgw am yang dwalanu aleh Hamur alau nenemn menuml kaenggan dan/alau kegagalan ueaemaan dauam menank bank Kavea! (ersebnn. dzn m Kos guaman sejumlah RM5,Dfln hendaldah dibayar oleh Defendan kepada Flainm, Ienakluk kepada a\oka(ur Da|ad mus . 12'" Deoembev 2023 SALINAN nw<ux saw rs: seam nocx JUDGE HVGH COURT OF MALAVA AT SHAH ALAM (NCVC W) Wwwfixww To |he pames‘ solmavs: 1. F0! the Plamhfl ' Nara WIN Naflis Messrs Syavus Raman 3. Company (xuala Lumuun 2. Fm me oevenuam v Aim Huralrah hm Mom! Asn Redha Muhammad Han: bin Hand Messrs Hafiz Ruzzwm a. Cu (Kuzlz Lumpur) m ,.am.cma.m.mMw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

KB-45A-2-01/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH 1. ) RUSLAN BIN ABD WAHAB 2. ) MAT ZUKRI BIN ZAKARIA

Criminal Trial. 2 accused persons and 2 charges under section 39B(1)(a) DDA. Defence called. The defence case was that at the time of the raid and discovery of the drugs, the were other persons in the House. This defence is not an afterthought because it had been put to the prosecution witnesses during prosecution stage. After maximum evaluation and careful consideration of the entirety of evidence by both prosecution and defence, the Court found that both Accused persons had succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.

19/12/2023

YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4038f365-cbcb-494c-810f-f556165fb8e2&Inline=true

19/12/2023 08:50:02 KB-45A-2-01/2021 Kand. 75 S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZfM4QMvLTEmBD/VWFl44g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal K'E—I5A-2-01/2021 Kand. 75 19/12/2023 m3:5c:a2 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SUNGAI FETANI DALAM NEGERI KEDAH DARUL AMAN. MALAYSIA NO KES KB-45 n1I2n21 No KES: Ks-45-12-12/2020 PENDAKWA RAVA LAWAN 1. RUSLAN BIN AED WAHAE (no KIP: 730524-n2-5n2:) 2. MAT ZUKRI am ZAKARIA (NO KIF: 72o22s.a2.51:: GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The accused persons, Ruskin bm Abd Wahab(Au:used1)and Mal Zukn bin Zakana (Accused 2; were charged lo! the luHuwIng uifenoes — (up Case No KB415A—201l2O21 ‘Bahawa kamu bevssma-same, pads 752020. Jam Vablh kurang 12 I5lsngah ham :1: ssbelah rumah No 41, Kampung Machang Eubnk‘ Ma\au a. damn daerah aamg‘ dv dalam Negen Kedah Dam} Aman, Ie\ah dldapall mengedav dadah berbahaya wawtu Melhamphelamme seberal 156 95 gram. olen yang demman, kamu bersama-sama dengan nlal bersama, Ie\ah meiakukan satu Kesalahan an bawah seksyen 39511 )(a) ma Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan bmeh dlhukum dw IN zvmoumuzmanwwrula 1 W. sum ...u.., M“ .. wed In mm m. nngmuly MW; mm. VI muus NM! bawah seksyen 39312) Akta yang same dun dubaca bevsama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan " [F1rsI Chirge][Exhibi1 c1‘ and (II) Case ND KB-45 242/2020 'Bahawa kamu bevsamarsama, pada 752020, jam Iebm kurang 12 151engan han. dv sebeml rumah Na 41, Kampung Machang aubok, Malau d1 dalam daerah Baung, an t1a\am Nsgen Kedah Dam! Amen, dengan 1anpa kehenaran 1e1an ada dalam mmkan kamu dadah bevbahaya sebem 7 19 gram (xallu gabungan dadah belbahaya Hermn seberal 5.29 gram dan mga dadah berbahayi Moneacmyxmorphunes sebemt n 9 gram) O\eh yang 11em1x1an, kamu bersama—sama dengan mat nersama, telah me\akukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Ak|a Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan bolsh dihukum 111 new: seksyen away Akla yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan [2'-1 Charge] [Exlvb1lC1]“ Prosecution’: can The raid on 7.5.2020 2 The pmsecutlnrfs narrahve can be summarized as luHcws lnsp :3/20594 Muhamad Nazn bin Mohamed Nasu, raiding olflcer [PWJ] received inturmauon man mere was drug tralfickmg at a house 1n Kampung Machang Eubok by an maw.aua1 knawn as 'Lan V1va' 3 He assembled two teams, one 0! w Ich he led cornpnsmg M 2 omcers vrom lbu Pejabat Daeraru [lPD] Kuala Muda: namely L/Km 2011225 Wan syuam hm Wan Kha1ru\anwar[PW5]and UKp| 205017 2 m umoumuzmanwwruta «.1. sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mV§\nIH|Y Wm 11..."... VI muus wvm 31 The fullowmg was PW4’s eviuenee durmg exammaunn m cme1— Macaw mane denslan haung kes? J Bavaflfi Kes adalah dalam kawalan says flan Ada beruma slya leparuaflg mua s mum kamu dam knwnlan‘ hiring kas mam dawn kem a d: mam Ada Dada hndan says 32 \n mes examinauan, PW4 sam — -s Sumasa duduk dalam Kaela. kamu peaang hamnq K257 Da\am kerela pun kamu vegans mnnam ml? say: Mik itai llba sayr J Birlng kes Nu wbenamya iaya Vahkkan an dalam pxasux s Seulang Iemk dalam pnmu pub? J Memansl gm Ielak damn nlnsnk 5 Ya‘ sekzmnu ham kamu benlamfl J Y: 5 Jam kzmu ysgang macim mi’ J Va 5. J 33 In reexamunamon‘ PWA e><p\aIned — -smug kes ynng says rampas nu mm 22 bilmin Inlmasuk pakel plaslwk memana says Velak dalam nlashk dan senang umuk say: haw: an xanliasa wane dalim kawihn say: flan say: sarmasa mm‘ 34 Thus cmm \s not persuaded that this 15 sumcxem to bleak the sham of evidence 0! create a doubt max Exhxbns PM PEA, PSA, F1DA(I)‘ P10A(2L moan) — 110; and F11A(1) — (7) produced in this Court are not the exmmcs seized vmm me House sm ummmuzmanwwrum “ "Nah: sum rumhnv wm ». um In my me .m.u-y MW; unaumnl «. muns Wm 35 36. 37 SN ZrMbDM4LYErnEDNwFl44i -mat. sum ...na.t M“ a. um law may he anatnttta vfihtg anunvtnhl «. IFVLING NM! The discovery ottne drugs and movement or the exhibrls were well explained by PW4 He was clear that truth the time he toax pnssessturl at the exhttatts at House ttnttt he handed them over to Pvvst the drugs exhtbtts were under the personal custody and control Thts svtuertee cannot be called trrto questton merely because he fatten to slate that he had taken them back to IPD Eallng th a ptasttc bag The non-marklng M the exhttatts at the House cannot he tatat wtten PW4 was clear In hts evtdence that he had the exhtbtts with htrn at all tttrtes The exhtbtts that were serzed tram the House were ttemtsed in the setzure tist [Exltlbll P15] and they match the ttents that were Itetea attt tn hantttng uverductttttertt stgned by both PW4 aha FW6 [Exhibit P13] In Mod tuba Hussetnzttdeh Maid v PP and another agfit ms 2 ML! 254, Abartg Iskandar JCA ttater PCA) upthed at 299 — ‘Thu taet that he the net put am the date aha his stgttatthe an thetn ate nn| tn tuefl render the 1:16 plisltc packet: iusceptble oi wlrtelabte lo tuat any doum tt ts attr mew that I| a the ettattty at the tttenttttcattan by the wtthess tn noun that shottre matter, rra| the qttattttty Dr mAmbE¢ DY lands atthe marktrlqs that were nut an the exmbtti the pttmose at ntttttng a marktng an an exmbll ts eatery tor the ptttpaea at tttahtmeatton tater tn noun. t such neett muss there ta no hard and last rule that theta mus| he plaoed all at! exttmtts the stgnatttte aha the ttate by awtttteaa who had httnatea them‘ put)! 'tsae PFW strn, outta, Muhammad D\Nll BM [must 7 MLJ ta: at 1757 35. For these reasons. «ms Cowl rs sausfied mere Is no doubt as (0 me rdemny or the drug exmbns The irrst ingredrenr has been made our Secnrvd ingredient Ior boar charges - possessian ol the drugs 39 On me rssue ol paaaession, (his cum was guided me dicta er Thomson 3 m cnan Pean Leer. v PF 1955 1 MLJ 237 at 239 wmcn has been erred wrm approval by me Federal Cam! in PP7v Abdm Rarrrnan bm Akll zoom 5 MLJ 1, PF v Demsh Madhavan 2009 2 MLJ 194, siew Yoke Keong v PP ma 3 MLJ 330‘ snasenr Hozmm Hassan V PP 2019 s Mu 231 and cnan war Loon v F? and anmner aggea\ 2021 4 MLJ see 40 vn order (er a person In be gumy ol an oflenee premised on pesseesron, A must be posseesren Ihat rs aciualed by a gu|||y knowledge and wrremercne Accused person has guflty knowkedge mus! relate to the auendanl cvrcumslances suvroundlng me wnole ease, and whether those crrwmsrances ruamy a reasonable Inference to bsdreuvMhere1(om(Modlaba rsuprsni, Gunalan all h rn OrsvPb|| Pr r A 48931 E) 41 In rne present case, PW4 gave dwecl ewdence mar upon enrtsnng me rnruula pumon anne Hausa, na saw bum me Accused packing “someIhIng“ and me an the dmg exhibits were found scallered on rne wooden cowea «able rn «ram 01 rnem. when PW4 identified mmseflas a puhee officer, both the Aecusea med to escape. Tnere was no other eceupam at me House at the wne of me rare n umanmuzmanwwrula *3 was sum ruuvrhnv M“ e. um a may he ..sn.r-r Wm dnuurmnl 3. muws perm 42 PW3's etnuenoe was mat Accused 1 mm known as "Len: men m the House alone after ms parents‘ death. In cross exannneunn. she was dear that his slbhngs only nsnen dunng tne lestIva\s and stayed war a oouple afdays 43 Know\edqe oi the drugs can be tntenee tmnt tne conduct of bath the Accused when they allempvted to escape 44 From the cncumstances descnbe W (he precedmg palagraphs, «ms Court is salvsfled that both [he Accused had custody and knowledge of the drugs «mm: on the wooden cuflee table The second tngrement nas been made om min: ingredient for First Charyt - tnfllcklng 45 Sermon 37(da) DDA reads — 'anY person who tsicund W passessmn al— (xvi) so gr-Immes ur ntme VI! wntgm ufimupltmammet omerwtse lnan tn aooemance wttn tne aumamy :11 me An Dr any mt-er wntten Vaw, man be hvasumadt mm me cumvary I5 prove: to be lrafldung .n me slit drug, ' 46 Thewetghl omnpnetamme remveredlrom Exmmts PVA, PEA and pm exceeded tne slannory nnnnnum and lnggers the statutory presumntmn 01 trifltckmg In sewer! 371daj(xvn DDA m zrMM:tmLrEn.aDNwrI44a “ we sum ruvthnv Mu e. um he may we mtgtntuly MW; annnvtnnl «. IFVLING mm 47 wnn «ms presumpcrun, me mm -ngrearem onne cnarge has been made um common inmmon 48 Seclvon 34 or the Penal Code reads — ‘When . mminnl Ad 3 Hana by xeveul pzrxmvt. rn lunhalinue ul ms sonnnon mlermon man, sea. alsucn persons ul\nb\elor(hala:1:n me same mannnv as with: ad was done by mm alone.‘ 49 ms prowsmn was exarmned rn Ghazalee tsupna) wnerem Zak! Tun Axml CJ new at ms — -ssmn 34 04 ms mar coca us Invoked byms urosecuusn m order to wave um lflhnugh an lucuved an not dvracfly comm! ms cmwul am. he was mvowed rn 3 ssnsa M mm net: mm was mnsrs m am». Ihal he had the oommon Imarman cl cummmmg mac cnmlnal act wrcn the M7121: rns accused nasu run he prsssnn (walker wnn ms Mhevs Mao had onmmnled cns acxunl umlin-I au n r. s-mrcrsm man ne pamsrpausa runny mm me Where u must however be shmm unmms was a pnuv anangsa man wrm «us 0015!; In omev words, an muse wm: are charged pmsuann m s an Mme Penar Cede‘ mm mm ms common rnnenmn |o oommn «ns snsnos charged‘ 50. Eothlhe Accused were in me rnidaxe pomon onne House and seen to be Dackmg “something” at the (me 01 me ram Tney mm men to abscond when FW4 mlraduced mmssw as a pence omcer srn zrmmmuzmanuwrula *5 -ms 5-rm I-mrhnv Mu be um In my ms snwn vnnu uaanmnl «. muws wnn 51 Fmm these circumstances‘ this Court can mier that both the Accused were acting In iunnerenee 01‘ e oorrrmon incerrnon, making both rnen liable ior mo enarees aga1ns1 1nern credizriiity 0! wiirresses 52 In PP v. Dale’ sen Anwar ioramrn No3 1399 2 Cu 215. Augustine Pam .1 (iater FCJ)‘ reiterated me1es1 ior either eeeapung or rejecllng ine evidence or a witness @ ~ ‘The Privy Council nas slated inenhe real leslslureilher sceepung or reyecmg me evidence er a wnness are now wnsislem the siory is with men, how 11 s1ands 1ne1es1 oi cross-examination, and new lar ms in with me res1di1rre evidenee and the circumstances cf the case (see Biro/re; v siremm NR [1939] PC em) 11 rndsi. however‘ be abssrved that oeing unshaken In cmss—examIna!ion is noi per ee an all—sufl1c1en| and 12s: or credibihly Tire inherent probability at a 1ae1 1n issue rnusi be (he pnrne eonsideraudn (see Mumaridy A ors v PF’ [1955] 1 ms I10,[I96B]1 MLJ 2571 11 has been rreid that 11 a wriness demonsireoiy ieiis hes ms evidence must be locked upan wi|h susplcmn and 1rea1ed wiin ceutiun, but 1o say1na1 11 snodid be e 1y veiecled wouid Dela go 1oo far (see Khoan Chye Hrn 1/ PP [1951] 1 ms 41; [1931] MLJ 105) II has Illa been huld um discrepancies and contradictions arm will always be in a case. In considering 1irern.wim1ire court has In decide is whether they an church a rr.-mire as In discredit the willing: nminly and render Ihe whole 0! his evidence wonhlul -nd um:-ustwdmry (see De Silva v PP[19G4]1 LNS 32‘ [I864] MLJ 51) The Indian Supreme Court nae pdrnied uul ma1 une nardiy comes across a wimess 1a rn urnoemrzmennrwruod nor. se1.1...r..rdn... 11544 1» my me niiginliily we anuuvianl VI eriuus DWI! wtiose evidence does not edniein a grain oi‘ dmniin or at any rate exaggerations, einbrdideries er enibenisnniencs isee ugarv stare orsinar AIR [1965] sc 277) it is useiui lo relerto PP v. Datuk Ha/i Harm! bin Han idris (ND 2) [1976] 1 ms 154; [1977] I MLJ is wneie Raia Azian siian FJ (as His Highness inen was) said at b 19 in my dpinidn. me disctepancies mere WIII aiways be, because in the circumstances in which me events nabpened, every witness doaa noi remember me samellwlg and na does nol remember accuraleiy every singie ining ma: nappened The quesiidn is wneiner existence 0! cerlim discrepancies is sviiieieni io deslvoy ineircredibiiiiy There is no rule oi iawoiai ine testimony 0! a witness nidsi eimei be believed in Ils entirety or rim at an A mun is fully odnioeieni, «or good and cogent reasons, to accept one bad bi me iesiirncny ov a witness and lo reieci me oirier In me absence oi any curiiradlciiori, however, and in the absence 0! any eiemenl ol inneierii improbahi|I|y, ine evidence oi any witness, whether a pdiiee witness or noi, who gives evidence on amrniacidn, snevid nbrniaiiy be accepied (see PP v Mohamed All [1952] 1 LNS 99, [1952] mm 257) “ (see Andy Bagmdah v PF 2000 SCLJ 299 at 292) 53 This Courl had llie benefit of seeing and hearing the prosewuon witnesses giving evidence and found them to be credibie witnesses ii is riaiewnnhy the PW4 gave urai evidence without the use 01 a witness statement He was able in describe the iaynui ufthe House adcinaieiy and give an accuuni 0! an me drug exnibiis seized inai day beiore being sribwn ine pnoiograpna onne House 11 rv zrmnmbtzrnanwwrldla we s.ii.i ...n..i wiii s. um law may he miginliily siini, flnuminnl m nFiLING wvili [Exhlbll l=14(a) —(H]]i the sketch plan [Exnit-iit P19] or the seizure list [Exll it P15] 54 ‘me discrepancies pointed out by ltie delence do not relate to material evidence Tne discrepancies did nut in any way render tne entirety of PW4. PW5 and PW5’s evidence unworthy of belief Dcfocltvo chums: 55 Tnis cuun rejects tne deience‘s contentiari tnal the charges eie detective primarily based on wnether the House is located in tne distnm of Baiing or Kullm 55 PW4 gave a reasonable expianstidn wiiy the Hausa is lacaled in me district ni asiing Exhibit P15 dues not create any duuhl because ll makes rederenos to line dlstncl OI Kuhm 57 ironically‘ tne tille ti: tne House [Exhibit |DD2a], a document introduced by devence. shows tiiat the House is in tact located in the district ol Baling Decision al ttie close iii prosecution’: can 55 This court undertook a maxlmum evaluation oi the prosecution's evldanoe against lmtii tne Accused to determine iltneie is credible evidence pmvlng eacn ingredient at the offence wnicn if uiiretzutted clr unexplained would warrant lneir conviction on laotn charges IN zrMoumLtEr.iaDNwrI40t'l 18 Wale s.ii.i ...n..i MU s. um is may he nllglnlllly «in, nutrient VI :FlLING DWI! 59 so Upon earerul eesessmem, |hIs Courl us salxsfled me: me prasecutmn has estahhshed a puma lacie case (or bath me Accused to answer Accurdmgxy, both the Accused are caued to enter then devence lo both the charges Dclnnce can s1 s2 63. m umaumuzmanwwrula Mler havmg me uplluns av makmg their aevence explained to them, both the Accused chose to gwe sworn evrdence fmm me mmess stand They also relied an the ewdence 07 4 other witnesses Amused 1 teslmed mat on the day m ques1ion,hewas wnrkmg the night smn at a consuucucn site and was due in mush work al1O so am AI about 8.00 am, he reeewed a call (mm Mohamed Azwan bin Azrm (Dxk Mal) [DW3] askmg mm to come back la the House because he Vast the House keys The Huuse was lhela y home and Dnk Mat was helping mm keep an eye on me House because Accused 1 lived m Desa Amen, near me wnrkplace Accused 1 asked Osman hm AbduHah [own for penmssmn ta leave work earher and was aHnwed to do so at around 10 on am On Ms way back to the House, Accused 1 pmked up Accused 2 at Eanggul Engguk In help mm move lhe Vemlilers I0 (he store. 1: mu. sum IHIHDIV M“ s. um us may he MVQVHIHIY Wm auuumnl m muue wvm 55 as 57 63 69. Accused 1 saw a black Proron Perdana belongmg lo Mal Sanp parked In fmnx onne House The (mm door was en arar and when he entered me House‘ the House Vaaked ransacked Upon enlenng the House. both he and Accused 2 were ambushed by a group or unknown men which was why they struggled and mjured onoe me rnen rdentmed merrrselves as police oflmers‘ both me Accused stopneo strugglmg Bath me Aeeused were |aken In the back onne House and saw Mal sano, Dlk Mat‘ Prer, Hahm, Pak Tam and Aplt smmg on me «nor They were handcufled and the drugs were an the able m from 0! them only he and Accused 2 were taken to IFD Kua\a Muda He did not know what became o1 me others He demed the drugs belonged to mm Accused 2 corroborated Accused 1's ewdence abcul me orok-up and what lransprred m the House He also confirmed seemg me black Pminn Perdana m (mm 0! me House, me 5 other men rrandeuwed at me back of me House and me drugs on me table In iroru ollhem. He also gave ewdenoe man he saw Zakana bin Ma! Vsa, ms father znws], euterde me House when he was taken away by me puhoe 2o ru ummmuzmanwwrula mu. sum IHIHDIV Mu e. um law may he ururm-r vvws duuumnl m muae perm shahhhe hm Easnn The other «earn or s omoers vrorn we Ballng was led by Insp srzosss Monenuneo Famz hm Nawx They were (asked to conduct a ram at No 41‘ Kampung Machang auook, Malau, aehng, kedah {House} on 7 5 2020 l 4. FW4 had instructed the omoers that he, lnsp ram PW5 end UKpl snehhhe [Rsudmg Team} would conduct the r.-ud on the House DlKp| Nun was asswgned (0 keep guard ax the reav of the House r whereas lhe rest :27 me omoers were to keep watch at the horn % 1 5 Upon emuex enhe House at about 12 no noon, PW4 and theleams h (excmdlng D/Kox Nuh) took posmon about 50 mehes from Ihe tron: ol the House ion observation The House was a single storey house wuh entrances on the were and ngm onhe House Dlmng me 15-rnunuce observamn‘ no one entered or exited the Huuse from the horn 5 then PW4 and the Rnuhng Team ennored me House through me from door that was situated on the Van or me House as shown .n i Exmbu P1A(Hj [area marked (2 In Exh | P19] me door was 1 unlocked upon erI1TYr PW4 comd see the dmmg eree [area 1 marked D In ExhrouP191wrueh led in a knehen [area marked H .n ; 1 Exmbn P19] 7 They wenno the mIdd\e oomoh nnhe House which was accessible \hrough a doarln me kncheh [avea marked K W Ekhmn F19] The muddle porhoh was between the knehen am: the ends purlmn onhe house [area rnerkeo L In Exmou P19] h was xohg and had a wooden oouee came The hghung at the midd\e po h was good a ru umbamuzmanwwrula mu. s.nn ruhhnv wm e. um in may he nunnn MW; dnunhnhl «. muus mm 70. Allhuugh both me Accused Vndged pohce repons on 24.3 2021 ‘ [Exmbuts D25 s 25] almul what happened m me House, they agreed m udss exammauon, that they am not Inlorm wus about me 6 men in Ihe House at me me ounen arrest ‘ 71 \n ms ewdence. DW3 relerred to his puhoe repen dated 15 5 2020 alumni me evems that oocuned on 7 e 2u2u [Exmm D27] He Vodged one repon because he lelt guncyvprennappmgme Accused. Hus «esmndny m cdun was as vuuaws — “Pada 7 s 2020. ‘am lebm kurang 7:00 pagl, saya lenma panggnan denpede Sanp. Smepas nu saya ,awap panggnan dia den seya lanya ma kenapa Lepas ma dla kata buleh bahk ke rumah Abang Lan laK7 Saya fanya kenapa, L118 cakap ates urusan dadah Saya cakap pada dla. sanp jangan bual meoam cu Tu mmah Abang ‘ Lan Abang Lan suruh says Aaga Hang ,angan bual gna saya kane dekal dla “ 1 72 DW3‘ who adrnmed being a drug adduot, us currenuy semng sentence lor e drug ouence. He wenno the House wnn Apll apo- UV them were ambushed and saw Mal Sarlp handcufled WM! the drugs on the 1ame In Item DY NM 73 He was pressured inzo oemng Accusecfl by me pohce because we House bekmged up mm WhHs wamng to Accused 1 to come (0 (he House, Fak Tam, Hallm and PIE! who weve called (0 came (0 the House by sanp, were also apprehended and nendeuwed m zrmaumuzmanwwrula we s.nn rumhnv Mu e. um law may he mtgwnnuly Wm flnuuvmnl m muus wvm 74 75. 15 77 73 nwa saw both me Accused loerng ambushed and captured by Ina pohce. laoln rlre Accused were taken away n a Proton Preve wrrerees lne remalmrlg 5 men were lnaded rnro awhile Avanza and leken lc Mesrrd Kala! and laler released nwa also confirmed seelng owe oulsiae zne House oernen nln Apdullen [own eunllrrned Accused 1‘s nalralive lnal he become anxluus upon receluing a leleplrone call aruund a 00 am and asked lo go home earlier DW4 also produced Accused l‘s punch card [Exnlpil D24] lo uerlly he was el walk lnel mumlng Later In me allernoon me some day, a couple ol police nfflcers approached nwa lo examlne Accused |‘s nouee for drugs wnen he told them that Accused I did not llve al the slte‘ they let] Dws ls |he reglstered owner at me House [Exnlplr n23] Han confirmed znal Dik Ma| nelped keep an eye on me Houee DWE could nol remember me dale cl me lnclderrl but gave evidence of seeing bath the Accused and s plner rrren bemg led uul ol rne House and luaded inlo 2 cars He did n01 know what exactly was happening and unly lalereamelo find out that Accused 2 was arrested lor a drug orlence 22 ru umanmuzmanwwrula Wane sum ...n..r wm e. um law may he unumnr pun, dnuuvlnnl m muuo mu submissions 79 an 31. e2 Pmsecutran subrmtted that they nad proven Ihetr case beyand reasonable doubt. The caurt was retened to tngredtente of the offences and the evidence test by proseumon espectauy that M PM/4, Pwe and FW2 Proseeutton stressed that the detenee at tmth tne Amused did not can tnw questton the trlgledtenls relalmg to type and wetghl at the drugs In the charges nor the statutory presurnptton under section ama) DDA Tnen defence was voeused on the Ingretitent at pnssesston and knowtedge tn that mm the Accused denied knowtedge at the drugs Iound an the tame tn the House Thew detenee was that the drugs hetonged to the other6 men who were captured at the Heuse tnat mommy Prcsecuttnn argued that the aetenee was an anerttmught and had not been put to the pmsectmen‘s witnesses dunng cross examtnatton Pmeecutmn atsn called Vito questton the eredrbmty attne defence wttnesses Detence on the other hand submmed that the prosecultun tented ta prove tnen case beyond a reasunable doubt 23 IN zrMAumLYEn.aDNwrI44a mt. Sum IHIHDIV wm e. um law may he MVQVHIHIY WW; anuurmnt m AFVLING Mn as as Delence referrsd lo the evldenne ai both me Accused and uwa Iha\ Olhel men had been arrested In the Hcuse with the drugs before 1:01». me Accused came back In pamcular, this cum was reverrea lo Ibrahim Mohamad § Agm y PP 2011 MLJU 1491 21:11 A 9 11; that me onus always remamsa mm me prosectmcn Io excmde the Duss1b1h(1eslhal amer mdmduals may have mess In me drugs 1n queshon Delence also shessed me need 1o pmpeny evamale ms dscences nanafive wmch they say was not cnauengea by me pmsecmmn They mled me following Court of Appeal cases 1o suppon thew argument — I1) G.Vasar1 Gunaagranv PF 2015 ILNS16D4, (11) PPV KamrarHlyasMuhammadl\yas 2015 MLJU47 2013 1 ms 51‘ and (iin) Monamad Hasnlzim Hussem v PP 2015 MLJLI g§5 2015 1 LNS 433. Lasfly. derence submined max :1 me and owns defence case, were were 2 narvafives lor the cows mnsmera||on whmh me prasecunun lirlsd 1o negate and referred ems Conn 1o sevem aumnrmss Defence suhmmea Ihal |h1s Cowl should accept me narratwe mas1 1avaurable to me Accused 24 m zrmbamuzmanwwrula ms SnH|Hh:v1hnvw1Hb¢ um law may m. m\§\nIHIy MW; dnunvmnl «. muus mu Arulylis Ind findings at mo clan of case as 197 secmn 152 or me CrIm1na|Pvooeduve Code pravides — oeedme Mme eanmusunn mm .1 m A: the wnchmon :31 me mat me Cami shal\anns1dera\l1he ewdenne ..mc.u bsfova 11 and dune whether the pvosecuhon mas unwed 11. me beynrvd rslncm-hla dnub\ 121 11 the Own mm mm me nmseamcm 11.. waved 11.. cats 1:-ma r:asonabledouhl1lI1e Counshan um um amused gmhy and he mly 1:. oonvmad on 11 1:; 1111-5 Cowl finds out (he pmiscuhun has m7| pmved Its case mam: veasmuhle am.‘ Me com mu mcmd u. may Lflamunhl ' In Mohamad Raum hm Vaakcb v PP 1991 1991 3 CLJ 2073 1991 g M 159, Mohd Azmr SCJ expounded a 315 — “V1 1: a men exmbhshed pnm:1n\e at M. yxlin cnmmll mm mm me geneval huvden cl DmMl1es wougnom me mal on me Dmsaeculinn 1a pmve beyund Iusonabre doubt Ina gum o1 me accused rm me enenae wuh whxm he .; clurgad M... 1. Im smmav buvdan placed on me mum |a move his mnmeme He '3 presumed mnucem unm pro»/an guflly To um an aoqumzl ms duly Is memly m I:as1aleasnnnb\e umm 1n me pmseculimu case m we course cl me Droienuuon use, (he pvoucumn may 01 amuse reiy an a».a1.n1= slaluwry pvssumphuns 1a move one 01 more M lhe essenlral mgredxems olme change When mm atoms. the pamwlav burden av pmovas opposed lo me gevueml human‘ shm: m we menus in rebut such pvesumnhons on me hmanee n1 nvobamlmes Much lram me delenue pm-11 «>4 vwwusneuvnerlhanmeburdanoficamnga veasunab\eda1m|1 am 1hs<:en31my 1:gm=nn.n me harden mm: prmaculkal 1o pvovs mum masoname doulfl 25 sm zrmmmuzmanuwrula -mu. sum mm M11 ». um In mm m avV§\n|HIy mm; nan-nl «. AFVLING Wm To earn In aonumm .n me me 01 the case (or me Dmsecuuun undevs mm av s can own Cnmmal Pvooeduve cone, ma Dunn mus! be sausm that M can aaawm Um accused has bun mans mu which w musbnmd womd wlnanl m. mmm (Murmxumy V Pvngaq 1 ms :2 Mdeflence u cllled, (be duly M um named Vs may m cnsl 3 reasonable mm m me Dmseouuon case He ‘s na| matured in pmve ms mnoounoe uayma reasonable doubt Ta um an .:nm.:, the Com mly ml 5. uunvmcnd at the mm. .71 live mm slnly ur vamun nmsmg . rennnible mam m me am“ of live nccused wm sumoe n ‘s um. hmteven wmng Var Ihe Cmm lo he wuvnned mu me delenee verswan ‘s mm. m mm case the mm mm came! an aequmz: In awmpnite casts n u N50 M4 wrong on the Cmm «a mum. that Im defence Ilory V! hlxe Bf ml umwmcmg, mm m max mxunce‘ «.2 cm mus! ..m mm um! nm. 3 hnmerquesmn man even mhe cmm does not amem or mm the delenoe exnbanamn, dnes w nevenhemss. raise a veasunalfle mm as to N5 gum? n \s lor mu mason mat m mu-g wim ma delenoe may or axp»an.mn, m. mqnmy av Judgu Hghily pmfer m ..m,n Ilvawghl awly the Vegafly esuhlhhed mm.» mar mu, nanher mun in Have in (he “bake-v.nh\e and mrw:m:mu' (est hem nvmynnu me "rensaMh\e uaunr‘ Ies| “ (aa\acnandran(supra):ac_as eunaxan (supra) atasfi 22a4 AMLJ Q 5. Md Zawudin mu Ralfan v PP gm: 3 ML] 173 at 793 2012 MLJU 314' 2013 ACLJ 21 2013 JAMR 480). SE Guxded DY mesa DIIIWCWMES‘ this Cmlrl cansxdersd all of the evidence adduced In determme it Drus»ecu|ion have made cm a case beyond reasaname um: srNzrMM)mLtEmaDNwFI4la 25 -mu. sum mm wm ». um In mm m .m.u-y mm; nan-nl «. AFVLING Wm a9 90 91 92 53. IN zlmmlmuzmanwwrlutl Tne delence case is lhel el me liine dune raid and discovery cl lne drugs, only Mal sanp was ail me House Mai sarip called several olrieis including SD55 Ia lne l-louse. SD’: was lhen pressured Dy lhe pclicelc cell Accused 1 to relurn to the Hcuse on me pretext lnellhe keys were missing Accused 1 prcughl along Accused 2 who was lc help him wllh me len er This nerrelive had already been pulls me prosecution wilnesses especially lc PW4 during cross examinallml Durlng cross exarninaiion cl PW4 and PW6. lrie names ol Mal sarip, DW3 and Apil were raised Delence had elsc sugges1edIhaI|he drugs werelcund in me biack Prolurl Perdana belonging to Mai sanp, which was parked in iron: oi the House during the raid PW6 pdrnmed me: he did not invesligele whom lne car belenged He aisl: uiu rial ounduct eny inuecligeuun in eceul whom actually sleyed a| lrie Hcuse The delence pul lcnh by both me Accused is censielenl wilri lne evidence oi DW3 and his police renan niece on la 5.2u2u [Exhibil D27] epoul lne presence cl 5 clners el lne House during me raid DW4's Iestlmony also suppnrls Accused 1's evidence vial he was called in relurn Ia ihe Hcuse This coun iound both lhe Accuselfs explanelicn liar struggling when liiey were inilielly apprehended by me pclice reeecnaple glverlII1a|— (ii Dlk Mal had unchaiaclerislically called Accused 1 lo relurn lo the House because lhe keys were missing, and 21 Wake s.ii.i ...mi will e. um in may he mlfllnliily WW; mm... m AFMNG mi (up the rrant dour was ajar and Accused 1 could see that the House had been ransacked 94 nwa-e verston or events was um sendusty challenged by prusectmun There was no tnvesltganon into ms pahee repan The Accused and the Ulhel defence wttrtesses were not shaken durtng cmss eximtnaltnrt This Court noted that both DW3 and DW4 stand to gatn nalhtng by gtvtng the evrdenoe rn suppon at the defence 95 The tssue abuul the bteek Pretan Ferdana was dnty ratsed In the course alPW4‘s crass exanrrnatmn Prusecuttun wrtnesses did not deter any exptanatren tor the car nu! ma PW6 investigate rts nwnersrnp The hresence ot the car etthe Hausa at the tune of the raid tends credence ta the detenee nerrattve that there were others at the Hausa dunng the retd by PW4 and ms team se me Conn ts eansned that the detenee or both the Aeeueed ts net an ettenhougnt as ti had heen ratsed and put ta prasecunnn wtlnessas 97 This court ts now presented with two verstans olwhat occurred at the House on 7 6 2020. When confronted by the attuatron‘ Nattrnr Pathnrenethan JC (35 Her Ladyshtp was) In PP v Ra a btn sham 2009 MLJU A68 [2009 t LNS 509‘ held— ‘tn vtew at lhe dtttenng verstons at events tram DW-2 and the exrstenee 01 ‘(us and Ah Fattr as well is the teetrrnony at the accused, tt becomes evtdent that there ts mnsrderatare uncenatnty 2: rn Hmmmuzmanwwrula war. sum ruuvthnv wm e. um re may he urtgtruuly enn, flnumtnnl m nFtLING perm and doubt as to the accuracy of the EVEVIN that took Mace on "rat day In vwew of these Incunslstencwes, rt 15 not possible fur the Court to regent the defence at the accused person aulnghl Ounce swmply any one Ot the versxons rmgrlt well be true‘ and the Cuurt VS not to be mated in posmnn wnareby n reaches a conclusion based on specmatmn or probability Further \ have been reterred In the case or rar cnar Ken V F'P [1943-1949] MLJ Supp 105 where Spencer wuxrnson J said '- wnere mare re morethan one Interenoe which can reasonably be drawn tram a set 01 (acts m a cnmirm case‘ we are of opmlun that the rnterenoe most ravourabxe to be accused snould be adopted ' In anon, the derenee nas managed to rarse a credrble doubt as to the tmna fides and completeness ot the pmsecmvnn case It would be unsafe to aanm the accused on me basrs at me reregerng evrdence Evan rt I anr wrong and me defence ought to be rereaed on a consxderatmn of t.he totality at the circumstances above‘ then I am guided by the prmaples m PP v Mar [1963] 29 MLJ 253 wrncn reqmre me to go one s1ep iurrher and consrder why the defence story though nbr credxmer may raree a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case The quenes wnrar remain unanswered as set But abuve, wmch pussltinlmes remam unanswered, [hrs Court Is unable to cuncmde atthe cwdse onne defence eaee to the standard 01 wool expected 0' It, namely beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused smoyed poassssmn ol the subject drugs and was traffickmg m t.he same In Ihese circumstances‘ the Com has no damn but tn aoqun the accused as me charge against mm has nan been made out beyond reasonalfle doubt " 29 n4 zrMM)mLrErr.aDNwrI4411 war. sum murmur Mu e. um re may he bngwnnuly mm; annnnnnr r. muus ma 95 Adopting znis approach, iiiie Court IS ol me View inai ii wouid be wholly unseie rd conciude wnicn D1012 versions ni evenis era irue by nieens oi speculation or prubabiiiries Conclusion 99 Anar maximum evaluation and earetui corislderatien nflhe entirety of evidence by train prosecinien and defence, inis ceun lines that both Accused nave succeeded in raising a reasonable doupi in the prosecution case Decision 100 Earn Accused are ieund nai guiiry oi both Charges and acduiiied dune sanie Dated 12 December 2023 Judicial Cnmmlssiunel High Cuun ul Malaya ai Surigal Felam IN umoumuznianwwrldla 3“ Wale s.ii.i ...i..i M“ s. um In may he mV§\nIii|Y «in, flnunviznl VI :FiLING DWI! as me wens were pamauy gnlled as shown In Exnrm WMC) and (D) E PW! saw 2 man whom he Vale! Identmed as the Accused They were seated on the Hour at the wunden calla: lame and had their back in me entrance [marked x in Exhlbxl P19] Tney were seen re be Packing 'someImng” 9 PM Inlruduoed rnrnsew as a pdnpe emcer spur the Accused looked shocked and med lo escape Accused 2 was llmckw epprenerrded Accused 1 put up an aggvessive snuggle and was Injured en the hack of his head and over me right eyebrow m the anernpu tn subdue him He was a\su apprerrended 10 In the presence onne Rardrng Team and both the Accused, PW4 exannned the wooden cuffee table. He recovered the (nflowmg merns that were scattered on me wooden mfiee [able » M) 2 transparent masuc bundres comammg subslance suspected to be Syibu [Exmbms PM and PEA], rn) 1transpaven| mastic packe| ocnlavung subs1anDe suspected to be Syabu [Exmmt PEA]. nn) 2 transparent pram bundxes wnlamlng wmle substance suspecied In be Hemm [Exrnms P1DA(1)and P1DA(2)], n (IV) we (ranspavenl plasnc packets conlammg wmle subsunee suspected to be Hsrom [Exmbrr F1UB11)- (won, and ru Hmmmuzmanwwrula we sum rumhnv M“ e. um law may he .ren.nn Wm dnuunnnl m .mue perm \ Eagl plhak Fendakwaan TFR Nabnla Huda hmli Muhammad Nam fimnanan Pendakwa Rays: Penbal Penasmac Undang-Undang Negen Kedah Aras 4, amk C‘ Wnsma Darul Aman Jalan Tunku Bendahara 05503 Alor Selar‘ Kedah. Eagi pihak Pemhelun OK? 1 dan oK'r2 Muhamad Asn bm Abdm Hamid Teluan Mohd Asn Chan 8. Ng Na 15, 2"‘ Hear, Lebuh Bishop 10200 Pulau Pmang m umoumuzmanwwrula W. sum lhlhhfl MU .. wed In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm (V) 7 transparent ptastrc packets contaming green substance suspected to be Herotrt[ExhtbitF11A(I)-(7)] tt Both the Accused were tees than 5 teet lrcm the exmbils whtch were scattered on the wccden ccttee table They denied that the drugs were lhetrs PWA and the Ratding Team dtd not recover any other ccmraband trorn the search at the House There was no other aocupartl bestdec truth the Accused 12 acth the Accused were arrested and PW4 setzed an the exhrtnts and tssued the setzure ttst [Exhmtt P15] PW4 reccvered an eleclrtctty but tn the name 0! Atadut Wahab btn satteh beartng the address Karnpung Machang Bubok, Matau, 09020 Kuhm [Exhttnt P16] PWA also direaed LlKpl shahtrhe to drwe the Pmlon Perdana that was parked autstde the House back to IPD Bahng tcr torfetture proceedings 13 sctn the Accused and the exhrctts were taken In IPD Baltng once there, FW4 weighed Exhtblts PTA, PEA, P5. P1DA(1), P10A(2), F10B(1) — (10) and P11A(tt-(7) tn the presence ct ncth the Aecueed The grace wetgm at the exhtctts was recorded H1 F’W4‘s pohce report Malau Rpt Nu 344/20 [Exhibit P17]. PW4 tnen marked aH 22 exhrtncs “N-1“to“N22“ respectwety and stgned and put the date on them 14 Both the Accused, an the exhtbtls and other documents were handed tc PW6 a| 7 an pm the same day ru zrMmmLtEn.aDNwrI44t't mu. Sum ruuhhnv wm ». um law may he .nnn.ny WW; dnuuhnht m muuc mu me invesligltions 15. M50 :3/25095 Munammao Symabmidm hm Suble_ [PWS] confirmed the recexpt of bath the Accused, the exmtm marked ‘N1'Io ‘N22' and other documents ham PW4. He gave ewaenee tha| na uemaykeo all 22 the drug exmans and kem aH cf (hem m a locked cabinet to which omy he had aeeasa 16 Pws also tesflfisd Ihat — (1) aunaugn me drug sxhmns were dumed «or fingerpnms, no dxsoevnable finger pnm was remvered as me surlaoes om-e exhlhlls were not even‘ (in) he vlswed |he House on 8.6 2020 an 1:00 pm with PW4 ano PW5 wheres! PW4 velraee his slaps Veadmg to the anes1 0! both me Aoouaea ano recovery of the drugs whflst PW5 tank photographs onne scene [Exhihn P14(Al — (H)l. and mi) Exhvbm F3, which concainea Exmbus P7A, PM PEA, PIuA(1), Pmmz), H0511)-110) and P1IA11)»(7) was handed tn PW2 on 11 6 2020 around 8 45 am 17, PW6 mfervxewed an the omeers wna (oak pan In the ram and confirmed that mere was no one entered or exneo me House dunng |he ram m mmmuzmamwruw Wane sum runhnv Mu e. um law may he mtgwnnuly enn. anuumnl «. muus bum 16 During the ursrt to tne nnuse an a 6.2020. PW6 spoke lo Mazian Malek. [PW3] regarding the House. P’\N3tes1med that she lives at No 32, Kampung Machang Bubok, Ma\au, aenrrg, Kedah. She used to run a loud SIHH W! from 01 her house who?! was acmss the road from the House She Idenhfied Accused 1 as “L’rin" the occupant otrne House sne gave evrrtenee mar Accused t hved ahane in me Hnuse atter ms parents‘ death The crremis-t's evidence 19. Muhamid I-tasrrun bin Khahd, gavernrnent enernrst [FW2] gave evndenae that he received P3 trarn PWS for wnren ne rssuea a reoerpt [Exhibit F4] bearing Jaba|an Klmla Malaysra Nu 20-FR- - 02707 [Lab Na] Anhelime 97 resent, the FDRM seal on Exhvbn P3 was rnrect He opened Exhibit P3 and tound met rt eonternert Exnrbns P7A, Fa/x, PSA, PtoAtt), F10A(2), Ptuatt) — no) and P11A(1)— (7) He remarked all 22 exnmns wrtn tne Lab Na 20 PW2 tesnired that at M! tunes the exmbtts were rn his 5012 custody and comm! and that when not rn use, the exmblls were Kept In a Vocked s|ee\ cahmetto wmch nmy ne had access The s|ee\ cabinet was tucated In the Cnenust Department vault 21 PW2 Inspected and analyzed the sentence at Exhibits PVA, PEA‘ FHA, P1OA(1j, P10/((2), F|0B(1)—110)and P11A(1)— (7) and ms findings are as snuwn In tne tame be\ow— m umanmuzmanwwrula Wale sum rumhnv wm s. um law may he mtgwnnuly Wm anuumnl m mrrns rmm Nu Exhibit: Pnlicl emu Nulwoiulll Wugm 01 Drug! marking Wtlghl (............) dmnx (lrnmmn! (gnmmn) « m s1 Mn 34 as as 7341 2 an 52 m e2 ms 5: 727 54 memnmphmxmxne 3 PM ’ as 49 as 45 75 a an vumm. "’ ' ’ 515 hemm Pwmzbz. susws 14565 13934 055 mnuww —— — mam - mulphwves Mm 5 114 hsvuln mm: — s1s—s22 me am <7) 0:5 momaoefw muvphinal 22 His nnmngs are refiected m ms report dated 12 a mo [Ex winch he handed over In PW6 an 25 9 2620 al 9.30 am Duly al lho Coun mm clou of pmecunaws can 23 The duty anhls Court at the dose of prosecu|\on's case Is pruvwded in: under sermon 1an(1)o1me Crimina\ Proaedure Code which \s to oansiaer whelhe< the prosecution have made out a pnma «acne case agamsl me Accused wmch requires him to enter ms defence m zrmmmuznanwwrula w.» sum M... W be um In wavy me .m.u.y «um. um... «. IFVIING Wm 24 25. 26 IN Z1MbDM4LYEmEDNWFI44fi Wale s.ii.i ...n.i M“ s. um law may he miflinlflly am. annnvinnl «. mus NM! A piiiria iacie case is established ac me close iii me prosecution's wrieieine Prosecution nas adduced such evidence oniie sssiemiai Ingredients oi irie charges as are sumcieni io convict ine accused persons, ii they were to keep siiam and me evidence is Ieii unexplained or umebufled FF u. Dalo’ seii Anwar bin ibraniin ND 3 1999 2 MLJ1aIG3,Lnw Kaoi chai 5. Ana! v PP zuua I cm 734 at 752, Baiacnenaran v Public Prosecutor was 2 Mu am at m 5. Public Prosecuiar V Mohd Ragzi bin Ami Eakar 2005 5 J For me pnzsecuiian to meks sue a pnma lame case iar Charge 1, pmsiecuiiaii imisi prove eacii ingredienl urine oflense namely znai (ii me drugs are dangerous drugs as defined in me DDA and 0! ins naiuie and weigni sei nut in the charge‘ iii) me drugs were in the possession ofbmh me Accused and mac iiiey had cusiudy or control and xnuwieage oi the arugs, and (iii) iney were iralfidflng ine drugs A pnnia facie case for charge 2 is made our when proeecutinn moves me iirsi twn ingredients set out abuve First ingredient . me identity amt weight 0! the drugs 27 Pm gave evidence In a dear manner He anaiysea the drug exmmcs [Exhibits WA, PEA‘ Pete i=1oAm, P1DA(2), moan) — 110) and P11A(1)—(7)] and came In a finding that — Evaluation and dellbentlons an clone of prosecuIion's ease ‘ (I) Exhibits P7A, PBA1 PEA conramea 156 95 grammes M methamphetamine which is the subject matter or me First Charge‘ and (H) Exmzms F1UA(|)‘F1UA(2),F10E(I)»(1U)and PIIA(1|-(7) cun|amed 529 grammes nl hemln and as grammes ml monoacelylmorphlnes which Is are subject matter av the 2"‘ Charge 25 AH mree drugs are listed as dangerous mugs In me Frrsi Schedme to the DDA 29 Guided by the arm 01 Augusiine Paul JCA Hater FCJ) In Balachandran v PP (supra) at ea, this cmm Is satrsnea that me prnsecuhnn has proven me nature and Ihe wergm :2! me drugs Wmch are the subject matter or the charges miimsl bum the Accused i r 30 PW4 teslmed mat he are non mark me 22 items seized «om me House The marking ml me exmmcs was only dune at IFD Balmg after they had been weighed in m umoumuzmanwwruta mu. sum runny M“ e. um In may he MVQVVIHIY Wm aim... VI eriuws wvm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-01(A)-190-04/2022

PERAYU KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA RESPONDEN EHSAN ARMADA SDN BHD

Difference between deductible business expense and capital payment under section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967

19/12/2023

YA Datuk Azimah binti OmarKorumYA Datuk Supang LianYA Datuk Azimah binti OmarYA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d4a519d2-231d-46a2-a509-3a63d53f192e&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: W-01(A)-190-04/2022 ANTARA KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA ...PERAYU DAN EHSAN ARMADA SDN BHD ... RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas) Rayuan No.: WA-14-31-06/2020 Antara Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd ... Perayu Dan Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia ... Responden [Kes Dinyatakan oleh Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan Bagi Pendapat Mahkamah Tinggi Menurut Perenggan 34 Jadual 5 Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 19/12/2023 14:55:36 W-01(A)-190-04/2022 Kand. 27 S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dalam Perkara Pesuruhjaya Cukai Pendapatan Rayuan No. PKCP (R) 426/2017 Rayuan No. PKCP (R) 427/2017 Rayuan No. PKCP (R) 428/2017 Rayuan No. PKCP (R) 429/2017 Antara Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd ... Perayu Dan Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia ... Responden] CORAM SUPANG LIAN, JCA AZIMAH BINTI OMAR, JCA AZHAHARI KAMAL BIN RAMLI, JCA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A. INTRODUCTION [1] This appeal concerns an income tax matter. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned High Court Judge in Kuala Lumpur High Court given on 3.3.2022, the Director General of Inland Revenue (Ketua Pengarah Hasil S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Dalam Negeri Malaysia - “the DGIR”) had filed a Notice of Appeal in the the Court of Appeal appealing against the said decision. [2] The appeal before us emanated from the decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (“the SCIT decision”) wherein the SCIT had decided in favour of the DGIR and had dismissed the appeal lodged by the Respondent (Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd - “the taxpayer”). [3] The Respondent, by way of Case Stated pursuant to paragraph 34 of Schedule 5 of the Income Tax Act,1967 (“ITA 1967”), had appealed to the High Court against the entire decision of the SCIT dated 30.8.2019. Principally, it is the Respondent’s case that the SCIT was wrong in holding that the payment/contribution made by the Respondent (as a developer) to the Lembaga Perumahan dan Hartanah Selangor (“LPHS”) to exempt itself from building low cost housing in the Project (the Exemption Sum) is not deductible under section 33(1) of the ITA. According to the Respondent, the capital outlay paid (at the front-end of the business before any development ever took place) in the form of an exemption sum paid to the LPHS to exempt the developer from having to construct low cost housing as a supposed ‘expenses’ is purely, wholly and exclusively for the purpose of generating income (under section 33(1) of the ITA 1967). [4] It needs to be highlighted that the appreciation of the difference (discernment and differentiation) between a deductible business expense (to generate income) and capital payment under this oft-litigated provision is truly a difficult and complex exercise to be undertaken by the authorities and by the Courts. This is simply because no business-for- profit would expend monies without the view of facilitating business for S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 generating income and profit. But it must be made clear that not all expenses, although in the end, such expense would indirectly facilitate the business, can be classified as ‘expenses’ in the ordinary course of the core business activity (which in this case would be the expenses ordinarily expected in the course of a mixed development with low cost housing elements). B. BACKGROUND FACTS [5] We will begin with the conduct of a field audit by the Director General of Inland Revenue (“DGIR / Appellant”) on the income tax returns assessments for the years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 (“YOAs”) of Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd (“the Respondent”). Upon the field audit, the DGIR discovered that throughout the YOAs, the Respondent had claimed a deduction on a payment of the total sum of RM6,226,981.00 (“Exemption Sum”) paid to the LPHS to exempt the Respondent from the state’s policy and requirement to build low cost apartments in its Mutiara Indah Housing Project (“the Project”) under section 33(1) of the ITA 1967 in order to provide the state’s constituents with affordable housing. Having taken the position that the deduction claimed by the Respondent is wrongful, the DGIR issued the Notice of Additional Assessment, Notices of Assessment, and Notification of Non- Chargeability against the Appellant for the respective YOAs. [6] We have perused the Learned High Court Judge’s Grounds of Judgment (“Learned Judge”) and find that the Learned Judge unfortunately failed to appreciate certain core facts and context underlying the case. One such core context was one of the objectives that the State Authority S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 intended to achieve when alienating the Project Land (“Tanah Anugerah”) to the Respondent in the first place. [7] The State Authority is empowered under section 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 to implement policies in respect of development of lands under any given State Authority’s jurisdiction. It is common knowledge that in recent years, our nation has seen a surge of soaring property prices which consequently led to housing becoming gradually unaffordable especially for the lower income sector of Malaysian society. Thus, in an effort to mitigate the hardship caused, it has long been a property development practice and policy that the State Authority would impose mandatory conditions for the development of low-cost housing on developers who are desirous to undertake any property development (“low cost policy”). This low-cost policy has therefore become a common feature in many large mixed development projects. [8] The Respondent, being the developer of the project in the present case, is not exempt from this same low-cost policy. It is not surprising that the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri (“MMKN”) on 6.12.2000 had agreed to approve the alienation of the Tanah Anugerah (covering 84 acres of land) to the Respondent for the purposes of a mixed development with the strict condition that the mixed development must fulfil the purpose of relocating and housing squatters (setinggan) by constructing low cost housing, medium low cost housing, and medium cost housing within the same Tanah Anugerah and the Project. S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [9] It is abundantly clear that the State’s decision to alienate the Tanah Anugerah is also to discharge its social responsibility to provide affordable housing for the displaced and registered squatters within its jurisdiction. The commercial portion of the Project was intertwined with the State’s objective of discharging the State’s social responsibility to provide affordable housing to its constituents. [10] We must highlight that the context of low-cost policy underlying the very alienation of the Tanah Anugerah to the Respondent is noticeably absent in the Learned Judge’s Grounds of Judgment. The low cost policy was briefly alluded to in the context of the exemption granted by the LPHS. This context is crucial as it would necessarily dictate the nature of disbursements which can be considered to be within the ordinary course of business (which the Respondent can insist to be ‘expenses’ wholly and exclusively to generate income) or on the other hand the nature of disbursements that goes beyond expenses and thereafter transcends into the realm of capital or capital outlay. [11] In a mixed development, which is encumbered with a low-cost policy, it is to expected that a portion of the development would inevitably yield lower or poorer profit margins. This is commonly expected of low-cost housing as the purpose of low-cost housing is less centred on profiteering and more focused on providing affordable housing to the less fortunate. Thus, to cause anything (or an exemption) that would alleviate the Respondent’s burden imposed by this policy can already be seen to be expenses which are ‘out of the ordinary’ to the core business of developing low cost housing. Thus, an upfront sum paid to allow the Respondent to construct free market housing (to yield greater profits than S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the ordinary business of low cost housing) is clearly not an ordinary business expense to enable the core business of low cost housing. [12] As mentioned earlier, it is an entirely difficult exercise to differentiate between capital payment and expenses if the Courts were to only look at the final utility or effect of the payment. Of course mathematically speaking, any monies injected, either capital or expenses, would somehow trickle down to revenue and finally profits (if any). Thus, the more meaningful and helpful exercise is to subjectively examine the purpose or object of the disbursement and not merely examining the nett effect of that disbursement. [13] Now, despite undertaking the Project with the low-cost policy in place, it was clear that the Respondent had never intended to undertake the normal course of development for a low-cost housing project. From the get go, well before construction or even planning, the Respondent had intended to steer the concept of the business away from having to build any low-cost housing. [14] This intentional diversion and flouting of the low cost policy was apparent ever since the Respondent’s planning and subdivision of the Tanah Anugerah. For reasons only known to the Respondent, it apportioned a specific area within the eighty-four (84) acres of Tanah Anugerah, which is situated on a class 3 slope area, for low cost housing. Clearly, this class 3 slope area was not suitable for the construction of low-cost housing. It goes without saying that any development on a class 3 slope area would incur more expenses and further hurt the profit margin. To our minds, the Respondent as a Developer must have known that the S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 development of low-cost housing in the class 3 slope area would not be economically feasible. [15] Notwithstanding that the predicament of the Respondent was self- induced, the Respondent still submitted the Development Plan while apportioning the class 3 slope area to be the designated area for low cost housing. Lo and behold, the Respondent then applied for an exemption under Pekeliling PTGS Bil. 3/2007 to exempt itself from having to abide by the low-cost policy citing the supposed economic non-feasibility of building low cost housing on class 3 slope area (a non-feasibility that was engineered by the Respondent in the first place). [16] In our judgment, the Respondent could have (but intentionally have not) simply apportioned any other part of the eighty-four (84) acres of Tanah Anugerah which was more suitable for low cost housing. It was impossible for the Respondent not to have known of the topography of the class 3 slope area within the eighty-four (84) acres of Tanah Anugerah at the time the Development Plan was prepared. This is because it is common practice that the intended project land would have to be visited, studied, and surveyed before the Development Plan can be concluded. It would be beyond belief and illogical that the Respondent did not have full knowledge of the lay-out of the land before drawing its Development Plan. [17] Thus, despite having full knowledge of the class 3 slope area, the Respondent still proceeded to apportion the very same class 3 slope area for low cost housing. A thoroughly perplexing financial decision unless the Respondent had always intended to inject capital outlay to divert the business away from any element of low-cost housing. The S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Respondent did not even bother to re-plan or re-apportion the eighty- four (84) acres Tanah Anugerah and just straight away applied for exemption to be allowed to construct free market housing. [18] To be exempted, the Respondent had to pay RM42,000.00 x 250 units of low cost housing (which totals up to RM10,500,000.00). The State Authority then already reduced the amount to RM8,750,000.00 (being RM35,000.00 x 250 units of low cost housing). Upon paying the Exemption Sum, the Respondent thereafter enjoyed the benefit of the exemption, the benefit to construct free market housing, and the benefit of higher profit margins of free market housing as compared to the margins of low-cost housing. [19] Based on the foregoing, the Respondent in our view, had wrongfully claimed the Exemption Sum as a deductible under section 33(1) of the ITA 1967. The same wrongful deduction which had led the DGIR to issue out the Notice of Additional Assessment for the year 2007, Notices of Assessment for YOA 2008 and 2010, and Notification of Non- chargeability for YOA 2009. C. THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX [20] The Respondent filed appeals vide Form Q to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (“SCIT”) against the DGIR’s notices. The issues that were determined before the SCIT were as follows: S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 a. 1st issue: Whether the payment of the Exemption Sum made by the Respondent to the LPHS to exempt itself from building low cost housing in the Project was deductible under section 33(1) of the ITA; b. 2nd issue: Whether the DGIR was time barred under section 91(3) of the ITA to issue out the Notice of Additional Assessment for the year 2007, Notices of Assessment for YOA 2008 and 2010, and Notification of Non-chargeability for YOA 2009; and c. 3rd issue: Whether the Appellant-DGIR has correctly and reasonably imposed a penalty under section 113(2) of the ITA at the rate of 45% on the assessments and additional assessments for YOAs 2007, 2008, and 2010. THE SCIT’S DECISION UPON THE RESPONDENT’S APPEALS [21] Upon the 1st issue, the SCIT found that the Exemption Sum ought not to be considered a deductible under section 33(1) of the ITA 1967 primarily because: a. The Respondent was the progenitor of the Project’s own non- feasibility to develop low cost housing as it was by the Respondent’s own volition and planning to apportion the class 3 slope areas of the eighty-four (84) acres of Tanah Anugerah for the construction of low-cost housing; “Jadi siapakah yang mencadangkan bahagian tanah untuk dijadikan kawasan pembangunan perumahan kos rendah? Dalam hal ini, kami berpandangan Perayu sendiri yang telah S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 mencadangkan bahagian tanah yang berbukit dan cerun serta berbatu besar untuk dibangunkan dengan perumahan kos rendah. Kerajaan Negeri hanya meluluskan pecah bahagi tanah berdasarkan pelan pecah bahagi tanah yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu dan pihak berkuasa tempatan hanya meluluskan kebenaran merancang berdasarkan pelan tanah yang telah disediakan oleh Perayu. … Kami juga merasa hairan dengan pemilihan bahagian tanah untuk dijadikan kawasan pembangunan. Kenapa Perayu memilih kawasan bukit dan cerun serta berbatu besar untuk dijadikan kawasan pembinaan kos rendah, kos sederhana rendah dan kos sederhana yang akan melibatkan perbelanjaan tinggi dan sudah semestinya tidak sesuai dijadikan kawasan pembangunan tersebut. Adakah Perayu telah merancang dari awal lagi kawasan berbukit, cerun dan berbatu besar untuk dijadikan alasan bagi mendapatkan pengecualian? Walaupun perkara ini tidak menjadi asas kepada keputusan kami, ianya menjadi suatu persoalan. Berdasarkan pemilihan kawasan yang dibuat oleh Perayu sendiri semasa menyediakan pelan pecah bahagai tanah yang kami percaya telah berbincang dengan juru ukur tanah yang juga kami percaya telah melawat tanah dan meneliti pelan topografi tanah (yang menunjukkan keadaan muka bumi tanah) semasa menyediakan pelan pecah bahagi tanah dan juga berpengetahuan mengenai peruntukan pengecualian pembangunan perumahan kos rendah yang terkandung dalam Pekeliling PTGS Bil. 3/2007” S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 b. The exemption sought was not a necessity to remove a business impediment. Construction and development can still continue on had the Respondent either re-plan or re-apportion the Tanah Anugerah or continued with poorer margin (due to the Respondent’s own decision to designate the class 3 slope area as low cost housing area); “Kami berpandangan sekiranya Perayu meneruskan pembangunan perumahan kos rendah, perumahan kos sederhana rendah dan perumahan kos sederhana dengan memindahkan kawasan pembangunan ke bahagian lain tanah yang masih kosong, Perayu tidak perlu membuat bayaran sumbangan pengecualian tersebut. Perayu juga boleh memindahkan atau menukarkan kawasan pembangunan perumahan dan bebas menetapkan jenis dan harganya ke kawasan tanah perumahan kos rendah, perumahan kos sederhana rendah dan perumahan kos sederhana dan sebaliknya tetapi ini tidak dilakukan oleh Perayu walaupun boleh berbuat demikian.” c. The exemption sought was beyond the ordinary expense of the Project which was already attached and expected to have a low cost housing element. The exemption by nature was not a necessary expense to conduct business or development, but instead a one- time capital sum paid to pivot the business to be more advantageous (by having to construct free market housing instead of low cost housing); S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 “Perayu memilih untuk membuat bayaran sumbangan pengecualian tersebut dan kami berpandangan Perayu telahpun beroleh imbuhan atau pulangan apabila membangunkan perumahan yang lebih mahal daripada perumahan kos rendah yang jauh lebih murah. Harga jualan rumah yang dibangunkan sepatutnya sudah pun mengambilkira kos pembangunan tanah dan juga bayaran sumbangan pengecualian tersebut. … Perayu telahpun memperolehi balasan yang menjadi tujuan bayaran sumbangan pengecualian tersebut dibuat, mendapat pengecualian dan boleh membina perumahan harga bebas dan akhirnya memperolehi keuntungan daripada harga rumah yang jauh lebih tinggi dari perumahan kos rendah.” d. The exemption sought would cause the Project to veer away from the originally intended business and purpose of the alienation of the Tanah Anugerah to the Respondent (that is to fulfil the State’s social responsibility to provide affordable housing for the less fortunate, as well as the displaced and registered squatters within the State’s jurisdiction); “Kami berpandangan bahawa Perayu sebagai pemaju perumahan yang menerima tanah anugerah dari Kerajaan Negeri bagi tujuan penempatan setinggan, Perayu telahpun disyaratkan dan dikehendakai menyediakan perumahan kos rendah bagi mereka. Perayu yang merupakan penerima tanah anugerah sememangnya dan seharusnya memenuhi syarat- S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 syarat yang telah dikenakan oleh Kerajaan Negeri, yang merupakan pemilik asal tanah kerajaan. Jelas bagi kami bahawa pembinaan perumahan kos rendah adalah suatu kehendak yang perlu dipenuhi oleh Perayu dan ini diperakui oleh Perayu dalam penhujahan bertulis mereka sendiri.” [22] Upon the 2nd issue, the SCIT found that the time limitation under section 91(1) of the ITA 1967 does not apply because the Respondent was negligent in declaring its appropriate and true income for assessment: a. The Respondent was firstly negligent in that it had wrongly and negligently declared the Exemption sum as a deductible in which the Exemption sum should not have been considered a deductible from the get go: “Berdasarkan keputusan kami di atas untuk isu kedua, kami mendapati telah berlaku kecuaian di pihak Perayu apabila membuat tuntutan perbelanjaan bayaran sumbangan pengecualian kepada Kerajaan Negeri yang tidak sepatutnya dituntut dan dipotong di bawah subseksyen 33(1) ACP.” b. In addition to the negligent and wrong declaration of the Exemption sum as deductible, the Respondent by its own express admission had admitted that the Respondent had wrongly and negligently claimed non-deductibles inter alia ‘Road and Drainage’, kos bayaran setinggan, kos tanah (Proprietor’s Entitlement), costs for ‘Feasibility S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Study’ and costs for quit rent and assessment rent which clearly should not have been claimed as deductibles: “Perayu juga telah membuat beberapa tuntutan perbelanjaan lain seperti komisyen dan elaun staf, kos cukai pintu dan cukai tanah yang tidak sepatutnya dibuat dan dipotong yang hanya didapati setelah pasukan audit Responden menjalankan audit ke atas Perayu. Perayu kemudiannya telah bersetuju dengan dapatan audit Responden (kecuali bayaran sumbangan pengecualian pembangunan perumahan kos rendah). Kami mendapati Perayu telah membuat pengakuan melalui surat dan e-mel perhubungan dan juga pertemuan/perbincangan dengan Responden bahawa pengiraan cukai bagi Tahun Taksiran 2007, 2008, 2009,2010 dan 2011 adalah tidak betul dan Perayu bersetuju supaya beberapa jumlah perbelanjaan tertentu ditambah balik ke dalam pengiraan cukai mereka. Kami merujuk kepada keterangan RW1, surat dapatan audit Responden di muka surat 39-63 Eksibit D, semua surat dan e-mel perhubungan anatara Perayu dengan Responden terutama yang di muka surat 11-14, 15-27, 28-35, 36, 37, 38 Eksibit D. Dalam Rayuan ini, Perayu telah tidak merayu untuk perbelanjaan lain tersebut dan hanya merayu untuk bayaran sumbangan pengecualian pembangunan perumahan kos rendah yang kemudiannya kami putuskan tidak boleh dituntut dan dipotong oleh Perayu sepertimana keputusan kami di atas. Jelas ini menunjukkan Perayu telahpun bersetuju dengan S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 perbelanjaan lain yang ditimbulkan dalam dapatan audit Responden” [23] Upon the 3rd issue, the SCIT found that the imposition of the 45% penalty upon the assessment and additional assessment was appropriate under section 113(2) of the ITA 1967: “Kita semua patut bersyukur dan berterima kasih kepada Responden kerana hasil dari audit yang dijalankan oleh pegawai Responden, tuntutan yang tidak dibenarkan dituntut dan dipotong tersebut telah dapat ditemui. Tindakan murni Responden ini dapat mengembalikan hasil cukai kepada negara. Oleh itu, kami memutuskan bagi Isu Ketiga ini bahawa Responden telah secara betul dan munasabahnya mengenakan penalti di bawah subseksyen 113(2) ACP pada kadar 45% atas taksiran dan taksiran tambahan yang dibangkitkan bagi Tahun Taksiran 2007, 2008 dan 2010. Pengenaan penalti sebanyak 45% tersebut boleh dijadikan tauladan kepada Perayu dan pembayar cukai lain supaya tidak mengulangi dan membuat perkara yang sama.” D. THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT [24] Dissatisfied with the SCIT’s decision, the Respondent appealed against the SCIT’s decision at the High Court. The Learned Judge had allowed the Appeal on the primary ground that the exemption was a bare necessity to remove an ‘obstacle’ that would have otherwise obstructed the Respondent from conducting its business. S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 E. OUR ANALYSIS & FINDINGS 1st issue: Whether the payment of the Exemption Sum made by the Respondent to the LPHS to exempt itself from building low cost housing in the Project was deductible under section 33(1) of the ITA 1967 [25] From the outset, we must highlight that a vast majority of the context underlying the Project was entirely absent and unappreciated in the Learned Judge’s decision. The Learned Judge merely took a simplistic approach in that any sum paid (notwithstanding context, purpose, and object of the disbursement) must be considered a deductible expense if that disbursement had the effect of aiding the business to earn higher and more lucrative profit. A simplistic approach which we believe would make the differentiation between capital and ordinary business expense to be both impossible and meaningless (as no for profit business would expend any sum of money be it capital or otherwise, for any purpose without the view of making a profit for the business). [26] We find that the Learned Judge had wrongly asked only the objective question as to the nett effect of the disbursement and had failed to ask the proper subjective question as to the nature and purpose of the disbursement in and of itself. If we were to subscribe to the Learned Judge’s objective approach to the issue, then any monies expended of whatever nature and purpose, can be considered deductible business expenses (consequence of which we are certain would be wrong and be against the very spirit of the Income Tax Act 1967). We find guidance as to the appropriate subjective question to ask in Waller J’s ratio decidendi S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 in the House of Lords’ decision in Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) v Scott Bader Co Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 1116: “It is very difficult but perhaps not impossible, to determine this without some element of subjectivity. Indeed, in many cases the test will be wholly subjective. When deciding whether or not a solicitor is entertaining a client to lunch, the test must be wholly subjective. The solicitor is entertaining; it may be because it is an old client; it may be because it is the only opportunity to discuss the business. The court has to decide the real purpose, if it is for the trade, vocation or profession, and whether it is independent, ie independent of the business purposes to be served (see Bentleys, Stokes and Lowless v Beeson (Inspector of Taxes) [1952] 2 All ER 82 at 85–86, 33 Tax Cas 491 at 504–505). It would be impossible in such a case to do other than make the decision subjectively. In considering the purposes of a company there may be room for some objectivity, but it will normally be to assist in making the subjective decision. i) the test is a subjective, not an objective one - i.e., the relevant question is, "What was the object of the person making the disbursement in making it?", not, "What was the effect of the disbursement when made?". (Emphasis added.) [27] We find that the Learned Judge had failed to appreciate that it was not that the Respondent was ‘unable’ to abide by the low-cost policy in place, but instead the Respondent deliberately flouted and had never intended to abide by the low-cost policy from the outset. The Learned Judge’s mis- appreciation of fact is reflected in paragraph [14] of her grounds of judgment: S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 “[14] It is unchallenged fact that the proposed site for the Appellant to build the low cost houses was situated on a class 3 slope which according to the Appellant has resulted to building the lower costs units not profitable as it involves a higher cost. In its letter to LPHS dated 19.9.2006, the Appellant had explained that when earthwork began at the housing project, it was discovered that many large rock formations occurred in Phases 1 and 2 where the costs of breaking the rocks took a sharp rise in costs which puts a greater strain on profit and development of the project. The Appellant had to make a choice of either having to halt the project or obtain the exemption. The Appellant being unable to satisfy the condition imposed on the planning permission and in order to carry on with the project, opted to obtain an exemption.” [28] The Learned Judge also wrongly held that the exemption sought was an ‘ordinary expense’ which was in the ordinary course of the Respondent’s business of property construction and development. In paragraph [16] of her grounds of judgment the Learned Judge held: “[16] There is a need to take a holistic approach in the Appellant’s business in its entirety and the purpose of the payment/contribution. The housing project is how the Appellant would derive its income. By making the payment/contribution, the Appellant has the option to build other types of unit that can produce more money and yield greater profit. The payment/contribution are part and parcel of the expenditure that the Appellant has to incur in producing its income from the project. The Appellant either had to build the lower cost units or make the payments to LPHS. It is clear that the payment was carry on with its main activity i.e. selling houses. It can be comprehended that for commercial and S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 business reason, the Appellant to conduct its business on a more profitable basis as making the payment/contribution is or profitable to the Appellant than building the lower cost units. An expenditure is not disqualified from deduction because the expenditure involves the attainment of profit.” [29] We find that the Learned Judge had failed to appreciate the finer nuances and technical nature of property development involving low cost housing. The Learned Judge failed to appreciate that to be exempted from the low cost policy is in fact the extraordinary feature in the Project’s development. An ordinary development and developer being placed with the low cost policy would have to ordinarily abide by the same policy, and ordinarily expect a lower profit margin (as the very nature of low cost housing is for affordability and not maximum profit). To expend money to be exempted from this ordinary course of business is no longer mere business expense, but a capital outlay to set the business. [30] We agree with the Appellant’s argument that the exemption sought was a one-off capital payment or injection to pivot the Respondent’s business to be more advantageous well beyond the ordinary nature and expectation of a mixed development with low cost housing elements. We have mentioned above that the appropriate question to ponder is a subjective question. As to the appropriate subjective question to ask we duly found guidance in Waller J’s finding that the appropriate examination is NOT ON THE EFFECT OF THE PAYMENT, but on the purpose of the payment (see Scott Bader (supra)). An extension to that wisdom is in Clyde LP’s ratio decidendi in the case of Robert Addie and Sons' Collieries, Limited v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue 8 TC 671: S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 “What is "money wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade" is a question which must be determined upon the principles of ordinary commercial trading. It is necessary accordingly to attend to the true nature of the expenditure, and to ask one's self the question, is it a part of the Company's working expenses? - is it expenditure laid out as part of the process of profit earning? - or, on the other hand, is it a CAPITAL OUTLAY? - is it expenditure necessary for the acquisition of property or of rights of a permanent character, the possession of which is a condition of carrying on its trade at all? It was pointed out by Lord Davey in the case of Strong v Woodifield 1, [1006] A.C. 448 at p. 453, and it has long been recognised, that in order to make deduction of a disbursement admissible "it is not enough that the disbursement is made in the course of, or is connected with, the trade, or is made out of the profits of the trade. It must be made for the purpose of earning the profits.” (Emphasis added.) [31] Thus, what can be considered or expected to be ordinary business expense cannot merely be seen through the lens of loss or profit earning. It must be examined with full context of the nature of the business, and nature of the Project in and of itself. If we were to follow the Learned Judge’s objective examination, any monies spent into a business can be considered as deductible ordinary business expense (as it would have the nett effect of revenue and profits (if any)). This cannot be the intended position and precedent intended by the law or parliament. [32] Thus, it is incumbent upon the Court to examine the nature, and full context of the Project itself. Only then can the Court viably and certainly identify what can be considered ordinary expense or otherwise in the S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 context of that particular Project. In the case before us, the very nature of the Project was a mixed development with low cost housing policy in place. Thus, it is ordinarily expected that a portion of the business would by design be less ‘for-profit’ and more for social responsibility. There would be an expected reduction in profit margin due to the low cost policy in place as the Respondent would not be able to construct and sell free market housing. [33] Having the above ordinary expectations in mind, can the Learned Judge still surmise that the exemption was ‘ordinary expense’ in the context of a mixed development with low cost housing element? We certainly do not believe so. The payment of the Exemption Sum was a one-off capital outlay to enable the Respondent to altogether exempt itself from the social responsibility and low cost housing elements ordinarily in place within the Project. In the ordinary course of a mixed development with low cost policy in place, ordinary expense would refer to expenses to realize the State’s mission to aid and help its constituents to be able to afford housing. Any one-off payment that would exempt the Respondent from this social responsibility element, is certainly not an ordinary expense and is instead a capital outlay. [34] The Learned Judge had also misdirected herself in applying the wrong standard of determination between capital and business expense. In paragraph [20] of her grounds of judgment she held as follows: “[20] It is clear that in seeking for the exemption from the obligation imposed in building the lower costs houses, the payment/contribution made by the Appellant to LPHS was to remove the obligation or impediment to greater profit. The courts have recognized that a S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 payment made to remove an impediment or obstacle to profitable trading or that result in the increase of income is attributable to revenue.” [35] The appropriate threshold for a disbursement to be business expense is that the object of the disbursement was so ordinary and necessary that it must be paid to remove an obstacle that otherwise would have obstructed the business itself. But instead, the Learned Judge had wrongly widened the criteria to include disbursements to remove obstacles that would otherwise obstruct greater profit. An obstruction against business cannot at all be equated to obstruction against greater profit. The former (if not paid) obstructs business itself (a necessary business expense), while the latter (if not paid) merely obstructs bigger margins or an advantage (capital outlay). [36] We refer to the House of Lords’ decision in Strong and Company of Romsey, Limited v Woodifield (Surveyor of Taxes) 5 TC 215 in which the House of Lords had dismissed an appeal against the tax commissioner’s decision to disallow some deductible claimed by the taxpayer. The House of Lords in plain terms had described a deductible expense to be an expense that was so necessary to enable the business to CARRY ON and EARN profits and not to ENLARGE the profit margin. It must be so crucial and essential to the business that without the expenses, the business would be UNABLE to conduct its trade. In dealing with the question whether a sum of £1490 paid by the Appellants for cost and damages occasioned to a person staying in their inn by the fall of a chimney, is a proper deduction in arriving at the profits of the Appellants’ trade for the purpose of the Income Tax, Lord Davey at page 220 had answered the said question as follows: S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 “The answer to that question, in my opinion, depends on the answer to be given to another question, whether the deduction claimed was a disbursement or expense wholly and exclusively laid out and expended for the purpose of the Appellants’ trade within the meaning of Rule 1 applying to bot Cases 1 and 2 of Schedule D in Section 100 of the Income Tax Act, 1842……I prefer to decide the case upon Rule 1.., which applies to profits of trades and also to professions, employments, or vocations. I think that the payment of these damages was not money expended “for the purpose of the trade.” These words are used in other rules, and appear to me to mean for the purpose of ENABLING a person to carry on and earn profits in the trade. I think the disbursements permitted are such as are made for that purpose. It is not enough that the disbursement is made in the course of, or arises out of, or is connected with, the trade or is made out of the profits of the trade. It must be made for the purpose of EARNING the profits” [37] A good parallel can be drawn with the House of Lords decision in Tucker (Inspector of Taxes) Respondent and Granada Motorway Services Ltd Appellants [1979] 1 WLR 683. In Granada Motorway (supra), the Minister of Transport leased to the taxpayer a motorway service area for a term of 50 years for a variable rate of annual rent. This variable rate of rent was subject to the duty imposed on tobacco products sold on the taxpayer’s premises. To secure a better advantage under the lease, the taxpayer applied for the business to be exempted from duty on tobacco sales. The exemption was granted on the condition that the taxpayer pays an exemption sum of 122,200£. Upon payment of the exemption sum, the taxpayer enjoyed the enduring benefit of lower rent S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 under the lease as the rate of rent was no longer inclusive of duty on tobacco sales. [38] In view of these facts, the House of Lords clearly pronounced that the payment of the exemption sum (although having the nett effect of higher profit by lowering the annual revenue expenditure) still remains a capital expenditure or capital outlay because by nature, it was a one-off capital injection that was not a recurring expense in the business of the taxpayer. The House of Lords also found that the advantage gained was by itself an enduring benefit akin to an asset. At page 685-688, the House of Lords (as per Lord Wilberforce) inter alia stated: “…that since the payment of £122,220 procured an improvement of a fixed capital asset by reducing the rent payable under a lease, it had brought into existence an advantage which endured for the benefit of the taxpayer's trade in the way that fixed capital endured; that, although a result of the payment was a future reduction in revenue expenditure, the payment was made to improve or modify a fixed capital asset and, as such, it was capital expenditure and not deductible in computing profits for corporation tax purposes. … For myself I cannot doubt where it lies: it is a case of once for all expenditure on a capital asset designed to make it more advantageous.” (Emphasis added.) [39] On the same score, the Respondent in the case before us paid the Exemption Sum to attain an enduring advantage to be wholly and fully exempted from the low-cost policy. Thus, by the same astute logic, the disbursement paid by the Respondent (the Exemption Sum) cannot be S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 considered an ordinary recurring business expense. It was a one-time payment to attain an advantage which pivots the business to be more lucrative (and not merely to enable business or trade). [40] The Learned Judge had also wrongly found that the exemption from the low-cost policy had no enduring benefit. In paragraph [24] of her grounds of judgment, the Learned Judge states: “[24] It must be emphasised that in obtaining the exemption, the Appellant does not acquire any asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of its business. As stated earlier, a payment made to remove an impediment or obstacle to profitable trading does not create any new asset or enduring benefit and is attributable to revenue.” [41] In this regard, we are in agreement with the Appellant that the one-off exemption would effectively carry an overwhelming enduring benefit in the form of a continuous extraordinary advantage for the business to be insulated and exempted from the ordinary social responsibility policies put in place typical to a mixed development with low cost housing elements. [42] On the contrary, as we have found earlier in our judgment, like the advantage of higher profit attained by the taxpayer vide being excluded from tobacco duty in Granada Motorway (supra), the Respondent here similarly attained an enduring advantage in which the Respondent would enjoy the extraordinary margin of free market housing (as compared to low cost housing) even before the construction started, and shall continue to enjoy the fruits from the higher margins even beyond the conclusion of the Project. Thus, it was plainly wrong for the Learned S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 Judge to find that the Respondent had not at all enjoyed any enduring benefits from the exemption. [43] The Learned Judge also failed to appreciate the glaring distinction between an ordinary recurring business expense and a one-off or one- time capital outlay or injection to obtain an advantage beyond the ordinary expectation of the nature of business undertaken by the taxpayer. We find valuable guidance in the House of Lords’ decision in the case of British Insulated and Helsby Cables, Limited Appellants; And Atherton Respondent., [1926] A.C. 205. [44] In Atherthon (supra), the House of Lords dealt with a taxpayer’s plea to declare a one-off lump sum payment to establish a pension fund (under a trust deed) for the taxpayer-company’s staff to be a deductible ‘ordinary business expense’. The House of Lords had held that such one-time payment to establish an advantage (in the form of the establishment of a pension fund for the staff) cannot be likened or compared to a recurring monthly contributions for the same pension fund. Although technically the lump sum payment might effectively contribute to the same pool of monies that the monthly contributions are paid, yet the purpose and nature of the one-time lump sum payment was not merely contribution but the very establishment (or attainment) of an enduring benefit (asset) being the pension fund itself. Lord Atkins held as follows: “If the word "asset," as used in this connection, be confined to something material - and I do not think it well can be so confined - then I am inclined to agree with Scrutton L.J., that, if the existence of this pension fund results in making the staff of the company more contented and less inclined to change their service and therefore, on the whole, more S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 efficient, these results when secured would amount to an "asset" of the company's business. The Master of the Rolls expresses the same idea at the end of his judgment, in the following words(1): "It appears to me that when you consider what is the nature of this payment, not for the purpose of meeting an existing, an actual liability, but only for the purpose of, in a very general way, improving the position of the staff, the right attribute to apply to this is that it was a payment made as and for the purpose of a capital outlay and cannot be deducted from the revenue as payment made in the course of seeking profits and gains." (Emphasis added.) [45] The same principle can squarely apply in the case before us. The nature of the one-off Exemption Sum was not to meet any existing liability or necessity but instead was to obtain an advantage (by improving the terms and policies placed upon the Project) which in essence is an enduring asset. Viscount Cave LC concurred and shared the same sentiment in his ratio decidendi: “But when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital. For this view there is already considerable authority.” (Emphasis added.) [46] Our deliberation above would be more than sufficient to reveal the unfortunate errors in the Learned Judge’s decision. Nonetheless, it would be remiss of us if we do not address the Respondent’s utter reliance on S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 a very recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia v Mitraland Kota Damansara Sdn Bhd [2023] 4 MLJ 846. [47] Now, the Respondent desperately tried to draw a parallel between the case before us and Mitraland (supra) on the stance that both of these two cases dealt with the payment of an exemption sum which had allowed a developer from being inundated with state policies upon their respective developments. In Mitraland, the developer paid an exemption sum to be exempted from the state policy providing for the reservation of units and discounted price for Bumiputera (“Bumi”) buyers (“Bumi Quota Policy”). Meanwhile, the Respondent in the case before us paid the Exemption Sum to be exempted from the state’s low cost policy. [48] Perhaps, on a simplistic and at the surface level, the exemptions in the two cases might seem similar in nature. But in reality, and in full breadth of the facts and the law, the two cases are dissimilar and thoroughly distinguishable from one another. For us to explain the utter dissimilarity of Mitraland (supra) and the case before us, we must first properly understand the core reasons why the Court of Appeal had allowed the exemption sum paid in Mitraland to be declared as a deductible ordinary expense of the business. We must emphasise here that the Court of Appeal in Mitraland had arrived at its findings based on the following core reasons: a. The exemption from the Bumi Quota Policy was indeed a removal of an obstacle which otherwise would have obstructed the sale of the Bumi reserved units itself. In the ordinary course of property development, it is within ordinary expectation that there would be a risk that there might not be enough Bumi purchasers who would buy S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 out the reserved Bumi units. Thus, if not for the exemption, the Developer in Mitraland (supra) would not be able to conduct business and sell off their stock-in-trade (being the unsold reserved Bumi units: “If that sum was not paid, the former Bumiputera-reserved units could not be transferred or released to non-Bumiputera buyers. A payment made to remove an obstacle to profitable trading was attributable to revenue. The payment of the said sum was wholly and exclusively related to the production of income and was not capital in nature — they did not enrich or improve any item of fixed capital” b. The exemption sought was not a matter of choice but instead a matter of contingency in the ordinary case where the reserved Bumi units were not bought out by the Bumiputeras. It was not that the Developer was intentionally or voluntarily seeking to flout or transgress against the Bumi Quota Policy; “In fact it is common ground that without making the payment to LPHS the bumiputera units cannot be transferred or released to the non-Bumiputera purchasers. And it cannot be disputed that without the payments being made, the respondent would not have been able to sell the bumiputera units to the non-Bumiputera purchasers and generate its income. By selling the bumiputera lots to non- Bumiputera purchasers it directly generates the respondent’s income as a property developer.” S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 c. The exemption sought was an ordinarily expected expense in the context of the reality of the sale of the reserved Bumi units. It is ordinary in the course of such business dealing with the Bumi Quota Policy, that there would be a foreseeable and reasonable risk that the Bumis might not buy out the reserved Bumi units. In such instance, it is ordinary that a Developer would seek to be exempted from the Bumi Quota Policy so as to allow the reserved Bumi units to be sold off to non-Bumis; d. The exemption from the Bumi Quota Policy does not lead the Developer to attain any ‘advantage’ or earn ‘higher profits’ beyond the ordinary margins and ability to sell the same reserved Bumi units. This is simply because, the revenue to sell the reserved Bumi units without Bumi discount will have to be tapered off with the same rate of discount (which the Developer must pay to LPHS as the exemption sum): “In the event the approval is granted, then an amount equivalent to the Bumiputera discount of 7% or 10%, as the case may be, has to be paid or refunded to LPHS for each such sale of a bumiputera unit to a non-Bumiputera. Hence, on a sale of a residential unit priced at RM500,000, the developer would have to pay the sum of RM500 to LPHS (equivalent to 10% Bumiputera discount). Thus, the income from such sale would be RM450,000, which is the same as the after discount income from the sale of a similar unit to a bumiputera purchaser. Thus, contrary to the findings of the SCIT, there is no gain in terms of the net realised sales proceeds to the respondent from the sale of the bumiputera units to non-Bumiputera purchasers S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 after the LPHS approval is obtained. Thus we find that the following findings of the SCIT are plainly wrong. … The respondent will not make any additional profit through the sale of the these bumiputera units to non-Bumiputera purchasers as the respondent has to pay/refund the amount equivalent to the Bumiputera discount to LPHS. The SCIT’s finding is untenable. The respondent will not make further profit through the reduction of taxable income after deducting these expenses as the respondent declares the full non-Bumiputera purchase price stated in the invoice or the sale and purchase agreement as the turnover, and not the discounted bumiputera purchase price. As such, by deducting the 10% Bumiputera discount paid/refunded to LPHS as a revenue expense the respondent is merely reducing its taxable income to reflect its true income from that sale.” [49] Having understood the full breadth of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Mitraland (supra), the dissonance and dissimilarity between Mitraland and the case before us becomes exceedingly glaring. Firstly, contrary to Mitraland, the exemption sought by the Respondent in the case before us was entirely voluntary, pre-empted, and planned even before the Project had an approved Development Plan. The exemption in Mitraland was brought upon by sheer unavoidable contingency totally beyond the Developer’s control. Starkly different, the Respondent here had all the opportunity to re-plan and re-apportion the 84 acres Tanah Anugerah but had intentionally refused to do so in the blatant intent to seek to be exempted from the low-cost policy. S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 [50] Secondly, the exemption sought in Mitraland was beckoned upon a necessity at the back end of the Development when the reserved Bumi units were already completed but were not able to be sold to Bumi buyers. By contrast, the exemption sought here was a pre-empted capital outlay planned even before the business (construction) was set in motion at the front end of the Development. [51] Thirdly, the exemption sought in Mitraland was indeed an ordinary expense ordinarily recurring in the course of developing a Project placed with the Bumi Quota Policy. In the ordinary course of business in Mitraland, it is reasonably expected that Bumiputera buyers might not buy out the reserved Bumi units. Thus, it is ordinary that such exemption become necessary to enable the units to be sold to non Bumis. Notwithstanding, it is in fact ordinary that the state can impose conditions upon Developers and it is also ordinary that developments shall abide by state-imposed conditions. It is out of the ordinary course of business that a developer be simply allowed to voluntarily flout the conditions out of their own choice and volition before construction ever began at the planning stage. [52] In the ordinary course of low cost housing development, it is reasonably expected that the profit margin would be a modest margin. To obtain an exemption to be exempted from this modest margin and to generate far more income than the original purpose and design of the affordable housing simply cannot be considered an 'ordinary expense'. [53] Fourthly, the nett effect of the exemption in Mitraland was wholly different than the nett effect of the low cost policy exemption in the case before us. In Mitraland, the exemption paid would only cause the nett revenue S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 from the sale of the same property to Non Bumis to be the same as a sale to a Bumi buyer (with Bumi discount). Thus, the Developer in Mitraland does not earn any additional income or profit from the sale of the reserved Bumi units to Non Bumi buyers. [54] On the contrary, in the case before us, when the Exemption Sum was paid, the Respondent was free to construct and sell free market housing which were vastly more lucrative than low cost housing. It was a total shift of concept, profit margin, and total elimination of all low cost housing and social responsibility elements from the Project. [55] Fifth, in Mitraland, the exemption was not exactly a one-off capital payment. It was recurring costs expended as and when the contingency arises when the developer had to sell the unsold reserved Bumi units to Non-Bumiputera purchasers. It is not a one-off capital injection to enable the developer to work outside the confines of the Bumiputera Quota Policy. [56] The question is - beyond the slippery slope of discerning between a capital and an expense, we have to answer a simple subjective question: Could the Respondent still conduct its business in construction if not for the exemption? And the clear answer to that question is a resounding ‘yes’. The Respondent can still continue with construction and sale of the mixed development by apportioning a different land area within the 84 acres of Tanah Anugerah for affordable housing. Thus, the exemption was not a necessary expense to earn income. Construction and sale can still proceed without the exemption albeit for lower margins (due to the construction of affordable housing (“Affordable Housing Margin”). And S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 this lower margin would be the common and ordinary margin for any developer who must abide by the policy for affordable housing. [57] Anything that was injected to insulate the Respondent from the Affordable Housing Margin is not ordinary expense and instead a one-off capital injection to maximize profits at the detriment and expense of the low cost policy in place. It was not a commonly recurring expense that the Respondent had to incur in the course of constructing and completing the mixed development project with low cost housing element. [58] We have deliberated on the 1st issue at long length above, and we do not hesitate to answer the 1st issue in the NEGATIVE. The Learned Judge had erred in finding that the Exemption sum paid by the Respondent to exempt itself from building low cost housing was deductible under section 33(1) of the ITA 1967. The Exemption Sum was clearly a capital outlay injected to set the Respondent’s business in a more advantageous position beyond the ordinary terms and course of a mixed development with low cost policy in place. 2nd issue: Whether the DGIR was time barred under section 91(3) of the ITA 1967 to issue out the Notice of Additional Assessment for the year 2007, Notices of Assessment for YOA 2008 and 2010, and Notification of Non-chargeability for YOA 2009. [59] Considering our answer to the 1st issue, it follows that the Respondent’s argument (regarding the time bar issue) would necessarily fail as Mitraland (supra) does not in any way aid to prove the Respondent’s reasonableness in its conduct (in negligently claiming the Exemption Sum as a deductible expense). S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 [60] The Respondent’s contention on the time bar issue was two-folds, namely: a. It was not negligent and was reasonable for the Respondent to believe that the Exemption Sum paid (to exempt itself from the low cost policy) was a deductible expense considering the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mitraland (supra); and b. The assessment must necessarily match the negligence complained of for the time bar exception under section 91(3) of the ITA 1967 to apply. Thus, the Appellant cannot claim the exception on the basis of a different issue other than the Exemption Sum itself. [61] Thus, by the Respondent’s own logic, then the Respondent had unreasonably and negligently drawn a parallel between the Exemption Sum in this case before us and the Bumi Quota Exemption in the case of Mitraland(supra). To our apprehension, a reasonable man of sound mind would not have come to such an ill-conceived notion. [62] A reasonable man would have understood the vast differences between an exemption by sheer necessity in ordinary course of business (alike in Mitraland) and an exemption by outright voluntariness beyond and outside the ordinary course of business (alike in the case before us). A reasonable man would have been able to differentiate between an optional exemption at the front end of the business (as capital outlay to set the business) and an exemption by contingency at the back end of the business (as necessary expense to enable the very sale of stock-in- trade). A reasonable man would have been able to mathematically S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 deduce that the exemption in Mitraland would not have earned the Developer anything extra or additional beyond the ordinary course of a development with Bumi Quota Policy in place, and that the exemption in this case before us would grant the Developer a greater advantage of an enduring benefit, and additional profits beyond the ordinary course of a mixed development with low cost housing element. It was clear that the Respondent had negligently deducted the Exemption Sum from its taxable income. [63] Therefore, by the Respondent’s own argument, the negligence complained off would have already matched the DGIR’s assessments and additional assessment over the wrongly deducted Exemption Sum. By the Respondent’s argument, then the exception under section 91(3) of the ITA 1967 would necessarily apply. Thus, the DGIR was not time barred to issue its Notices for assessments, additional assessments, and non-chargeability regarding the wrongly deducted Exemption Sum. [64] The issue whether or not the assessment in question must match the negligence complained of is already moot considering that the nature of negligence in the case before us is already in alignment with the assessments (and additional assessment) which the DGIR was imposing against the Respondent. Thus, we will not unnecessarily protract our decision longer beyond the issues that would already sufficiently determine this appeal. [65] Likewise, we answer the 2nd issue in the NEGATIVE. The Learned Judge had erred in finding that DGIR was time barred under section 91(3) of the ITA 1967 to issue out the Notice of Additional Assessment for the S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 year 2007, Notices of Assessment for YOA 2008 and 2010, and Notification of Non-chargeability for YOA 2009. 3rd issue: Whether the Appellant-DGIR has correctly and reasonably imposed a penalty under section 113(2) of the ITA 1967 at the rate of 45% on the assessments and additional assessments for YOAs 2007, 2008, and 2010 [66] Under section 113(2) of the ITA 1967, the DGIR has the discretion to impose a penalty up to the amount of the undercharged or undeclared income. However, in this case before us, the DGIR already exercised good grace and discretion and only imposed a penalty of 45% of the undercharged or undeclared income. [67] The Respondent contended a defence of good faith in that no penalty ought to be imposed as the Respondent (although wrongfully claiming the Exemption as deductibles) had mistakenly claimed such deduction in good faith. On the contrary, the Appellant contended that the defence of good faith is not open to a penalty imposed under section 113(2) of the ITA 1967. We are inclined to agree with the Appellant. If the same defence of good faith was intended by the Parliament to apply to section 113(2) of the ITA 1967, then the Parliament would not have drafted two separate provisions to differentiate the circumstances in sections 113(1) and 113(2) of the ITA 1967. The defence of good faith is a clear feature in section 113(1) of ITA 1967 (in instances where there was a criminal prosecution for omitting or understating income): “113. (1) Any person who— S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 (a) makes an incorrect return by omitting or understating any income of which he is required by this Act to make a return on behalf of himself or another person; or (b) gives any incorrect information in relation to any matter affecting his own chargeability to tax or the chargeability to tax of any other person, shall, unless he satisfies the court that the incorrect return or incorrect information was made or given in good faith, be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than one thousand ringgit and not more than ten thousand ringgit and shall pay a special penalty of double the amount of tax which has been undercharged in consequence of the incorrect return or incorrect information or which would have been undercharged if the return or information had been accepted as correct. [68] On the other hand, the entire feature and phrase of ‘good faith’ had been clearly and expressly omitted in the penalty imposed under section 113(2) of the ITA 1976: (2) Where a person— (a) makes an incorrect return by omitting or understating any income of which he is required by this Act to make a return on behalf of himself or another person; or S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 (b) gives any incorrect information in relation to any matter affecting his own chargeability to tax or the chargeability to tax of any other person, then, IF NO PROSECUTION UNDER SUBSECTION (1) HAS BEEN INSTITUTED in respect of the incorrect return or incorrect information, the Director General may require that person to pay a penalty EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT of tax which has been undercharged in consequence of the incorrect return or incorrect information or which would have been undercharged if the return or information had been accepted as correct; and, if that person pays that penalty (or, where the penalty is abated or remitted under subsection 124(3), so much, if any, of the penalty as has not been abated or remitted), he shall not be liable to be charged on the same facts with an offence under subsection (1). [69] Thus, it is apparent in the case before us that the Respondent had already had the benefit of not having any criminal prosecution mounted against the Respondent. A criminal prosecution would have opened the Respondent to the risk of a penalty to the extent of DOUBLE the amount of the undercharged or understated income. But in the case before us, the Appellants already exercised due discretion and opted only to seek for a smaller sum of penalty (without pursuing any criminal prosecution) under section 113(2) of the ITA 1967. [70] For this proposition, we find support in the Court of Appeal decision in Syarikat Ibraco-Peremba Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2017] 2 MLJ 120: S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 “There is a clear distinction between sub-s 113(1) and sub-s 113(2). Although paras 113(1)(a) and (b) and paras 113(2)(a) and (b) are almost identical, but the effect of sub-s 113(1) is different from sub-s 113(2). Sub-section 113(1) provides for an offence being committed in the circumstance provided for in para (a) or (b) unless that person ‘satisfies the court that the incorrect return or incorrect information was made or given in food faith’. Whereas sub-s 113(2) provides for a situation where there is no prosecution under sub-s 113(1) has been instituted in the circumstances provided for in para 113(2)(a) or (b), the Director General may require that person to pay a penalty. That being the case, the defence of ‘good faith’ as found in sub-s 113(1), and not found in sub-s 113(2), does not apply to the Director General’s discretion under sub-s 113(2). We therefore disagree with the appellant’s submission on this score.” (Emphasis added.) [71] In the event we are wrong in this issue, we have difficulty, in any case, finding good faith on the part of the Respondent based on the Respondent’s conduct. It must be kept strictly in mind that the Respondent would have evaded a tremendous amount of tax if not for the Appellant’s proactivity and initiative to examine the Respondent’s wrongful and understated taxable income. The case of Mitraland was not even in existence to lend any support to the Repondent’s ‘good faith’ at the time the Exemption Sum was claimed to be a deductible. In fact, the Exemption Sum was only one out of numerous other matters which the Respondent had already admitted to be wrongfully claimed as deductibles. If there was truly any genuine good faith in the Respondent’s conduct, the Respondent could have written in to the DGIR or at least communicated with the DGIR to seek clarification as to the DGIR’s stance regarding the Exemption Sum. Instead, the Respondent although S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 ‘in doubt’ had proceeded to ‘gamble’ the matter and outright claimed the Exemption Sum as a deductible (in hopes that the gamble would play out in the Respondent’s favour). [72] We are of the opinion that ‘good faith’ must involve the element of honesty and earnest pursuit of the truth notwithstanding the risk that the ‘truth’ of the matter might be unsavoury or unfavourable to one’s case. There must be an innocent contemplation of all the facts and prudence to act in manners that will reflect good conscience and bona fide intent. We find guidance in the Federal Court’s decision in T Sivam a/l Tharamalingam (as representative/administrator for the estate of Nagamuthu a/l Periasamy, deceased) v Public Bank Bhd [2018] 5 MLJ 711 in which the Federal Court had defined the term ‘good faith’ in broad legal terms: “What does the term mean? ‘Good faith’ is a weighty phrase. It implies, according to Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th Ed) honesty or sincerity of intention. According to the authors of NS Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes (10th Ed) p 1636, ‘good faith’ includes due inquiry and implies not only an upright mental attitude, and clear conscience of a person, but also the doing of an act, showing that ordinary prudence has been exercised according to the standards of a reasonable person. According to the authors, ‘good faith’ contemplates an honest effort to ascertain the facts upon which exercise of the power must rest; it must, therefore, be summed up as ‘an honest determination from ascertained facts’. The authors stated that ‘good faith’ precludes pretence or deceit, and also negligence and recklessness. The authors further said although the phrase may vary in the context of different statutes, subjects and situations, honest intent S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 free from taint or fraud, or fraudulent design, is a constant element of its connotation.” (Emphasis added.) [73] With the Federal Court’s summation above in mind, we were unable to find evidence of the Respondent’s effort to, at the very least, communicate with the Appellant regarding the position of the Exemption Sum (in the context of taxable income) for some semblance of certainty. The Respondent contended that it had obtained professional advice in managing its tax affairs. Yet, the Respondent remained unable to explain the reason the Respondent had not written to the Appellant for clarification if there was an honest doubt as to the taxability of the Exemption Sum. At best, the supposed attainment of professional advice can only be seen as measures for the Respondent to take a ‘calculated risk’ on the tax deductibility of the Exemption Sum. In any case, it would certainly fall short from an honest and straightforward enquiry communicated to the Appellant itself. [74] As we have already mentioned, the case of Mitraland has not yet been decided for the Respondent to rely on to hold an ‘innocent belief’ that the Exemption Sum was deductible. In fact, even if Mitraland was already decided at that time, a reasonable man would have been able to identify the plain and obvious differences between the two exemptions (as we have explained at length in our ratio decidendi in determining the 1st issue). [75] All of the above considered in this part, we accordingly answer the 3rd issue in the POSITIVE. We agree that the Appellant-DGIR had correctly and reasonably imposed a penalty under section 113(2) of the ITA 1967 S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 at the rate of 45% on the assessments and additional assessments for YOAs 2007, 2008, and 2010. F. OUR DECISION [76] All of the above considered, we hereby allow the Appellant’s appeal. The Learned Judge’s order and decision are hereby set aside. The decision of the SCIT is hereby affirmed and reinstated. We also order costs of RM25,000.00 (here and below) to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant. Dated 28th November 2023 SGD -------------------- (AZIMAH BINTI OMAR) JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL For the Appellant - Peguam Hasil [Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN)] 1. Ashrina binti Ramzan Ali 2. Surani binti Che Ismail 3. Athari Faris Ammery bin Hussein For the Respondent - Messrs. Raja,Darryl & Loh 1. Vijey a/l R Mohana Krishnan 2. William Wong S/N 0hml1B0jokalCTpj1T8ZLg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-25-60-03/2023

PEMOHON TANDA BESTARI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD RESPONDEN Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Application for Leave to commence judicial review - an Order of Certiorari to quash the Respondent's decision which is deemed to have been made on 7.3.2023 on the grounds the said Decision was illegal,void,unlawful and/or in excess of authority - a mandamus order for the Respondent to recognise and give effect to the decision of the Federal Court dated 9.12.2022 in the case of Wiramuda (M) Sdn Bhd V KPHDN which has held,amongst others that section 4C of the Income Tax Act 1967 is unconstitutional as it contravenes Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution - Whether the application raises important questions of law - Whether the application is frivolous and vexatious.

18/12/2023

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6b847647-93eb-443d-8ba0-0a801e454a1d&Inline=true

18/12/2023 10:51:24 WA-25-60-03/2023 Kand. 40 S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R3aEauTPUSLoAqAHkVKHQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—25-5o»o3/2023 Kand. 40 12/12/2132: 10:51-24 DALAM mnxnmm nusm MALAVA nu KUALA LUMPUR mum wuuuu pznszxumm «um LLIIIFLIR. MALAYSIA (anucwa KuAsu<uAsA sous) P munuum TUK ssm snmmu no zssua:/2oz: Dalam pamam suam Ksuuluran Respmvden taper“ yin] dmyalakan dan manggan damn surarsuml Pemomn benankh 2: 2 2:22: Gun 3 2 20236371 um.» dtanggap msampalkavv kepadz Pemnnon Dina 1 J ma, Dan nmam peokara Seksyan Ac Akla Cukaw Pendnvnlln mar, Dan Dam Defkara hak asas4 ke am nana sgpam yang tflpemnlukkzn a. bawan Fasa\ 1312) Pellemhagaan Forsckmuan‘ Dan mam penal: sualu kepuluun Mahkamah Furstkuluan Meflaysus mdahm Rayuan sum m omyssua/2n224w) yang um dwbankin pm w 12 2:222‘ Dan Dalam wrkam saalu psrmohcnan unluk anura Wm mm Fvmtlh Cemunn dun sun|u Penman Mandamus Dan vxexmu sm buzz-n'FusLuAaAHkvKMu «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Da[am Derkara Alwan 53 Kaedah-Kaeduh Mnhkamah mu Arman num aesruu nsvzwpuzuv snu am: (No Sylrlkil; aooonIo25:zu(5z1I:Ie-n)[ Famohcn Dan KEYUA PENGARAH MASIL mum NEGERI Resoonden Judgment Inxmdueuon I The Apphcanl on E 32023‘ filed an applwcaucn [or leave to commence [udxclal vevlew praeeedmg (znclmun 1) under Order 53 0! me was 0! Court 2012 (R06) seekvng, among other orders the following‘ - 1 1 An Order of cemuran to quash me Responaenrs deciswon made on 7 3 m2: and commumca|ed Io me Appncann on me ssms dale The Appluzanl allegsd (hat me sam nemsm was megsl, vmd, wv\awfu\ and m excess 0! aulhonty Addi\ionaHy. n allegedly breached oi pnnmpres av naxura\ [LA5|ADe, had been wsuunal, unreasonable. and resulled to the denial of ms Appncanrs leg[|[ma|e expectalmns: 1 2 A Mandamus Order In cnmpev ms Rsspondsnn to acknowledge and enforce me decismn of the Federal Cmm dated 9122022 [In me case 0! Wlvnmuda (M) Sdn Bhd v. Km. Ping ah Hnil Dllnm mgm [mm] 5 MLRA 255; [1023] 5 MAR 967: [2023] 4 MLJ 753; [2023] 3 cm 21 (mo Wlnmudn Daemon), whim was held , Ihal Secuon AC ofme [moms Tax Act 1967 (In) [5 unconsmuuonan as [I contravenes Amcre 13(2) nime Federal Consmmion (FC): »...xm: ‘ sm Razz-uYFusmAaAMkvKMu «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl .mm Wm! MLRM 507: [2006] 1 CLJ 917; [2005] 5 MLJ 60 21269 wnere Gopai Sn Ram JCA(as ne men was) held. nor ins Hign coun snouid not go mlo me iiienn of me case ai nia nav- siege us ioia is oniy io 155 ii lheapplicalmn luv ieeye is Mvclous So we wHl ine oonn be Emrllnd Io muse ieaye ii ii is a cue Mme irie Sllhpefl maiieicv ine runllswls one wnicn by se1IAad\aw(eImerwmieriIawnr\he oomnicn law) Y5 non-pudici:D\e' 39 ii is vile lhal me Appiicani naye to saiisiy me tests pmpaunded in |hs abovemsntioned cases to secure 0!: ieave io oornmance me judlual ieyiew proceedings. At this siage, the coun need not 90 mm the meals ol nie case but only [0 see it the suaieci ITISHBI is anienebre to judiciai review or whether (he acpiicaiion «or leave is iniioinus, 40 in any event, a wdicial ieview is me dlscration of me ouun. lhe applicallon for ieave Io commence iudicial review may be allowed in exceptional Izrcumslanoes as explained by the men supienie com in Goyemmnnn of M: yuie A Anovv. Jig Sinuh [19:71 1 MLJ Io5:[19as]1 MLRA 20 :[1se1| cu REF nnwnicri rie4d: ‘Herd aiicwingine appeai (1) iriediscieiion ix IIIH wiin ine eciineic an by my Uf imician review hm wneie mare is an anveai umvruan ayaiianie in me cuuiioanxcenioun sncuic rim naniieuy we unlassmfimxl IIIunM\z ciaei Vick iuneaiciidn at a maiani iainne no venom same siaiinoiy duly or in appmpnane cam a eenou. rm:-ch onne Dflnclpiei o4 n.iu.ei pumice nie duclnlon of the coun The PUIIIIVI Rlspondenl duniod de rovlcw on is amulnhlc In judicial 41. Order 53 mic 2(4i ov me ROC expiessiy euows peisons who are ‘adversely awecied" by the decision made by a public aumonly id Inmate iudiciai revlewapphcancns For ease oi reference. suhrule 4 is reproduced as rouows 14» Any person Vma IS adversely aneuea by me decisiwl, swan oi omlssluvi in ieiaiioii in me exams: on me puui: my a lunclinn ennui oe .nimeo to nuke ma appiicaiion ' Due mm SIN buzz-n'FusLuAaAHkvKMu “Nair s.ii.i navihnrwm be UIQG e my i... nflmnuflly MIMI dnuamnl VI nF\uNfl Wm! 42 43 44. 45 46 The requirelrlerlls ol Order 53 dune R00 are rnandalory and nnus1 he cnmplled wnn, larllng wmcrl me appllcallan would um be enlenalned by me Calm Tne Fulallve Respondent submlls rrlal lz has made no declsron wnlcn s amenable |a ludlclal rsvlew and man ma Applicanrs app alien is premature It Is to say mat lhe Pulallue Respondent‘: ndrweply u: me Appllcanrs leller does not emdunr la a declsmn amenable to ludicial review under Order 53 ol lhe ROC ll ls lvlle law mar larlure or relusal by a pudllc aulnarny lo make a declslon is also amenable lo ludlclal ravlew Tne Courls wlll have re allow me leave ldr judlfllal revrew in such clroumslanda In Oungo R-durioupa v. Kltua Pongmlr Hull Dulam N-g-rl [2013] MLRHU Ids; [2018] 1 Lus 334; [zlna] ulLJu 215. Azlxah Nawawl J (now JCA) had allowed me leave applrcalldn and had slalsd lhal — 1u] on me sa 2 any, «n. ppllclnl also mm. In an new mung la- local yo: an «ml pursuanr lo Amcle lx L71 ma M:layua—Derlmafl< um and the case laws. payments vecalved Dy rne zpphcznflmm Wlfl Swlla am not Iubpsl |a wllhlluldwlg ux Funhurmorul lne Iapllcarlt mllamtnd lhal Anlue IX 0! lna Malayslanenmark on plavalls W975 AA llrll cl (ha lu 1957 me Ippllclnl Illa axpnuly mm In In mm mu ll me DGIR I: la uiponfl favourably m in: app-n1lc:lll'I npunmlllun and spy (hurl an uapllum wlll mm In Appenl and rvpnunlalllm as ng njnhd by (M new llsl When me new «ml. lo mspurld (0 ma lvpllcanl 3 lcllsv dlled 29 la ZNS‘ rne applwanlukastha posmun mar me DGlR‘s IE1IeVfli\Ed 29 l2 and ll (ha daclslon of me new and deemed be an Mvn hnen served an the awllcam on 29 1 mm Hunu. nu appllcanl lllsd this appalmlon our ludlclll rwluw Icuen." (emphasls added) It Is Important lo note mar Order 53 of me ROG allows «or a broader scope ol revlewable declslons as compared ld lhe preulous promrans under the Rules of lhe Hugh cdun leso A declsron deemed made by me Pulallve Respondenl ls sumclenl to lnniale an appllcallon «or judlclal revlew ln Tang Kwor Ham a. Ors lsupra) [he Ccufl of Appeal held — ‘[50] The nlhev palm mused by learned counsel nalure ml with Var less carlfidarlcn lrllllrlan was nmna docmu1l'by:nyqrla And slm .. :1 ar :1 sm Mai-ul'Fusl.uAqAHkvKMu “Nana Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. met! a may r... nflfllnlllly ml. dnunvlml VI .nuna ml o 53 r em svezks av a 'oeusIorI'. me anvlminls havu nu causu Io -mu: on an apnI4<:a|Inn I.r,.amI rm/Iaw Aqaln. I cannot aunt :- ss 7. my must not I» and in Ilollllon. II mnil I» run mnhxlnllly. mgoom with o. 5: r. us) wmch pmwdes [511 lime sub-ml .. run tognhnrand In their pm... comma. ilun M Mon mm m ..... not .I-y- In .n ..I...I daemon by someone." Iempr-ass added) 47 I nausea max me mgn Conn has adomea a smular posmon In allowung IudIcIaI vawew agamsl deemed dsmsuons made by publn: auIhonIIes In In regard. we HIgn court has declmed In my on omar decusmns wrum were premxsed upon Ordev 53 rule 214) 01015 Rules 01 H9?! own 1950‘ were me amml av revnewame seasons are «mmed 43 I can prm/Ida no befler ralaranoe man lhe case a! lrnnlln snlolu Sdn Bhd v. MonmI Kowangzn Malaysia [2022] MLJU 3479; [2022] AME! zozn whevsm my Ieameu brother, wan Ahmad Farm J held as Iouows — 121I Ina I..n.. Serum Fedevnl Counsel allvaclad my allennon [0 me Impugned leller and Mania me I. the Iudgmnt unhe Conn oMDD<eI Amm Rahman hm Abduflzh MunIr& Orsv Damk Bandar KuaIa Lumpuv I. Annr I2uuaI 6 ML! 104 ox 1I.. lnvld ssc II... nubmlltud In» the Minlslefs nan-vuponu I. he lmvunned mm does not mun-.1. . .. slon wllmn In. mlamng 01 o 53 r2IA) In Mn, In. Vaamsd sFc mnlended lhal any attempt In amen . deemed dcclslnn" vmuld um nu m ... mm.I.I ......I... I.» III wold “me ...~ I251 wun respect on. nmm -ppmlch Km duclllon an IN! specm: Im. 47! Abdul Rahman hm Ahfluflah Mumrwvm cautmn My reason Is Ims Tn dxlulen 01 ms Conn M Ann-.I I. pm-IImI .n o 5: r 2(4)u1 my cum" Rnlvs at High EoIm1§B|).>l status as lmluws 7 Any rmim who Is am.u.eIy mauled by In. dicumns .I any pubhc a.I».nIymaII be anmlsd in make me apphcamn Hawevev IIII nrw 0 53 um mme ROC pmwdes as VnHaw1 . Any paint: an. Idvuuly afiqzhd by In. dccblun, uflnn av onflsllnll In Iemmn Ln me emslznce 01 We pubhc duty Dr Vuncwn IhaHb1 nmmed I. mike Ina lnuhcllnrv p... 1) at 17 sm mzmwusmumnkvmu «w... s.n.I luvIhnrwH\ .. UIQG . may he nrW\ruH|Y -mm. dnuamnl VI .nuna Wm! [29] me VIII! 0 53 izui ofllla Rec rias added (hi phrlsl “inc Olli ncllnn ai oiiiiulen In i lmii n iituiu vnlsllc auzy oi Nncllovl." In myvlsw in. waiu oiii mii Ii IFlVIl1|YiUI||IAlI In niaua II is ii iiiiii.eeelslaii. win. (III iiiiiauiieiiaii on». wars! - in in. MW e s: 7 mi ii. Illllllnn at an "-rlfllelul (emphasis added) a) (See. Synllkll K pa-l sdii Ehd v. Miioi I Knwangaii Malaysia and ulnar l:asu[2013]AMEJ MN; [2023] MLJU 524: b) ED Agriculture (Malaysia) Sdn and v. Mam ii Kuwangan Malaysia [2023] 4 AMR M3; [2023] MLJU 430; e) CMMT lnwsriii-ii: Ltd in M-iiml Kowairiguiri Malay a [mu] MLJU :50) 4? E5596 an the above. it is evident that the Putallve Respondents deemed aeesion at 732023 arising lioiii iis non-iepiy lo ine Appiicarils Ielter can be amenable |D|ud\C\E| review undel O 53 rule 2(4) 01 the ROC Out unini- so The Putative Respondent eonienas iriai me appiicaiiun is lime- halved by appmximaleiy 5 years since the VA 2017 Assessmeni was miriaieaed on ze22ola. Hawevav, I «ind Iha| irie subieei mailer lei lnis iuaicial leview penains lo lhe Puialive Respondent s deemed decision to refuse ine Auplicani s Discharge Applicalion in compliance with wiramuda Decision, aria nol lne VA 2017 Assessment 51 In an Agllcultun (supra) me High coiin recugiiisea Chis‘ . -rm] Bul ml In make any GBCISIHM iii are context al ine Wueflcy oi me iiine iiaina, would aiiiauni ia aii aniis an M H015 Ounlaxl oi o 53 i 2(4) oi ine R00 and i so naia nia miiiimi I iiiiii,1ion ei WIIIBGYDVI is nnw Fagellclll ‘ SIN R3:E-uYFUSmAqAMkvKMu “Nair s.ii.i nuvlhnrwm be UIQG M my i... nflmnnflly mi. glam. Vfl AFVLING Wm! nelimlulunu mm AAhyIMDGIR ' (emphasvs added) 52 Vn me ins(anl case, I find that me Apphcanfs mscnsrga Applncahcn |o me Pulallve Respondem pnemlsed upon me Federa\ cams season m Wwamuda dialed 9.122022. The Apphcanl seeks oomylxance Vrom the Putalwe Respondent wilh |he Wilamuda Decision, as Em:\Dsure1 remecxs me Putatwe Responaenrs remsal |0 Gumpw. Cleafly, I715 grounds of «ms apphcauun arose BY 9 12 2022 Therefore‘ ms Cour! views ms: Encmsure 1 wls msa wlthm 3 monlhsfmm 9 12.20221whenIhegmunds aflhe applrcalmn arose), and also wllhln 3 monms lrom lhl date at the Fmalwe Respandenfs deemed decision of 7 3.2023 Alturnzlivl Rtmldy 53 The Puvauve Respandem oomended (ha! (ha App:-cam must exhaus| me akemalwe remedy ofappeahng lo «he SCVT 54 The Appnssm m the msianl case seeks Mandamus omers For Ihe mauve Respondent to refund me taxes paid m the premous YA, where gains lmm oompmsary asqmsmon were previously sumemed to (ix. The'afD,‘4 \ am M (he VVBW that the Hwgh Com has [he authority to grant sud! reliefs 55 Even m respect 0! ;udic\a\ reviews -gsmsn lax assessments under the ITA, the men Supreme Court has have m Jagdis Singh (supra) msuhe Revenue Is not Immune «mm .umc:ax revwew nolwnhsvandmg ms aveuabmy cl an ausmszws ramady‘ so long as exoeouonal urcums1ances exxsl m me mm. of. - . cl vlicknflurlldlcllon or M. nlmluu Iopcflonn mm umumry my uv m ppmpnaxe cases a unoln beach of me pllnnlples of namml junllct (emphasis added) Fun 15 av 17 ‘ sm buzz-n'FusLuAaAHwKMu «mm. sm.‘ nmhnrwm s. U... m may s. mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 56 Trlls court vlews that the Plllallve Respondent iallure to lollew lne Federal calms declslon ln Wlramuda renders lvs declslon llewed. Moreoverl l am el tne vlew met me l>lllallve Raspondenl rles no rlght to leteln the taxes pald by the Applleant lor gems frum me compulsory acdlllslllon cl llle suplect Lands. Addlllanally, Ihe Putellve Respomenl nas also unlvslly enriched lmm bolh eelleetlng and lelalnlng M such taxes 57 Based on lne above ll ls my vlewlnel lne Appllcanrs nusa ls nellvler lnvalovs nor vexatlolls. Tnls appllcatlorl ralses inlponant quesllans al law: - (a) Whelherlhe Plflaltve Respcndentean reluse la leeegnlse and glve eflecl to me Wlramuda Deelslon wnlell nas neld. sectlon 40 o1lheITAIe ee llneonslllullonel as ll oonnavenes Alt 13(2) of me FC7 (D) wnelner lne Plllellve Respondent can leluse la refund lne Appllcarll trle amaum at taxes arlstrlg llom and pald on the cumpensallnrl leeelved lel ole eempvlspry eeqlllsltlon ol trle sllrlzect Lands nalwllrlslandlng lne Wlramuda neelslon by me l=edel-el court? 55. The colln ls ol tne vlew lrlal lne above qllestldns or law ls more Sullable to be deelded by lnls calm at the subslanllve stage Al me leave apphcalicnl lrle Ooun IS not supposed tn descend lnlo tne subslanllve nlerlls at me epplleallon Conclusion 59. Esarlng ln mind, trlal thls ls an eppllcallon «or leave |u commence ludlclal review pmeeedlng under order 53 of the R00‘ ll ls we met lest lul leave to commence wltrl judlclal revlew must he complled wlul. so. Havlng considered trle epplicatlen, ll ls my pplnlon mat the Applicant has met lne leave mresrleld ol lne lllalclal revlew. lt ls clear that mere ls a clear end arguable case presented by me Appllcenl Tllle appllcazlon lol leave ls rlelnlel lnvuluus nor vexallevs um ls 91 11 ‘ sm Mai-lll'Fusl.nAaAHkvKMu “Nair Smll luvlhnrwm be UIQG e my l... lllllnlllv ml. glam. VI mllva Wm! 61 Accord: gly, the appncauon lar leave to commence judwc\a\ rewew pmoeemng Is hereby allowed wun casts awarded m me cause. Dated. |<3r December 2023 Judge Hugh coun KuI\a Lumpur counsels For me Appncam Fm me Pulalwe Respormem ‘ sm buzz-n'FusLuAaAHkvKMu Dam‘ Nnm Nadkamx (En cm: ran Pm Rae wilh mm) Teman Lee Hlshammuddm Auen & Gledhm Peguambsla dan Feguamcara Lave! 5. Menara 1, Dulamas. Sclans Dmamas. No 1,Ja\an Dulamas 1‘ so-aau Kua\a Lurnpur. En Mona Hams bm Hanapx Semor Revenue Counsel (Clk Azleena b| Md Khalruddln, Revenue Cuunse\ mm mm) Lembaga Hasu Da\am Negeri, Jabauan Undang-Undang, Aris cs, Menar: Hasxt Perslamn Rvmba Permah C)/bar B. azauu Cybeviaya. Selangor nan n e! 11 «mm. sm-1 ...m.mm .. H... a may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! t 3 A Mandamus Order in oompel the Respondent to acknowledge and apply the legal position that established in |hB case :11 Wiramuda‘ the oumpensnhons received by We Appllcam for lhe oompulsary iacqttlsrllarl 0! I75 land parcel (Land) by the Selangor state Aulhorlly in the yeai ol assessment (VA) 2017. are not taxable under Section 4C 01 the ITA and hence. should not be suoieated to income |ax: no} land camp-nutten , VA l i Receivcd i iituti i ‘Na tot mssn PN 83741, uiaisaoo 2017 Mulum Deugkll, oaerah Sevang 1 A A Mandamus oider to sought tor the Respondent allowing the Apotlcent In suoniit revised lax computations tor the VA 2011 on the ti that the eomnensations received by the Nzplicanl on the Land aie not considered as income under the ITA, and tor the Respondent to accept and glve eileci to the ievisied lax computations accoidingly, I 5 A Mandamus Order to lnshucl the Resoondenl to reiund the sums dl taxes paid by the Appllcinl on the aompenseticn received for the ddmoulsoiy acquisition of the Land according to Wiramuda Decision, together with lnlerlst accruing at the rate oi 8% per annum on the said sum (caloulated from the day on which the Aoolicant has made payment at such taxes to the Respondent until the date the taxes are lulty retunded to the Applicant by the Respundsrflli 1 6 A Declaralmrl that the Respondent is bound by and mus| adhere to the decision dnhe Federal court in the wirarnude Decision that, amongst others. section AC or the ITA is unoonstituticnal as I| contravenes Article 13(2) ol the Fe, 1 7 A Declaration that iotldwing the Wiramuda decision, the compensations received by the Applicant tor the compulsioiy ns at its Land by the selengoi st-te Authority in the Daniel)? ‘ SIN Mai-ul'Fust.nAaAHwKMu «mu. a.ii.i navlhnrwlll a. u... a may i... mnmiiu MIMI dnuavlml VI nFlt.INfl mi YA 2017 are null taxable under Sectlnn Ac 01 me ITA and hence‘ not sublecl lo tneonte tax; 1 5 That all necessary and consequential dlrecllorts and orders be glven: and 19 All ptner and mrther vellefs wrnah thls Honouvable Courl deems M and proper 2 Atter the neanng. l allowed the Aupltcanfs application tor leave tor ludlolal review (Enclosure 1) Thus judgmem pmvldes the raltanale behtnd my declslnn Blckground Fut- 3. The tpttewrng salient facts are generally unetsptttea, The backgruurtd nanallve presented nere ts adopted, elther wllh or wllhoul tnaatncettons, trpnt lhe statement, Nfldavll VI Supporl and submtsslons at me pames. 4. The Appltcanl IS a mmparty tneprparatea in Mataysra and havlng olrree eattrees at Level 23A. lot Tower 2‘ Lebuh IRQ lot Resort Cfly, 62502 Pulvalaya Tne Appltcanls pnnerpal acllvlly ls tn the rreld at properly development. 5 At all malenal limes. the Applicant had been the ewner and negtsterea prupnetpr at the Land 3. The App 'canl had aequnea and held the Land as lls slack-in-trade unlll tn compulsory aoqtllsllion by the selangpr state Aulhortly. The oompensahnrt awarded in ma Aapllcanl for the Land ls RM8,410.1G4OO 7 on 28vzv2m3‘ the Appllcant filed In then some c tact-nng Nyala Cukil Pendavalarmhetriax return forlhe Yeara(Asse5smen12D17 (VA 2M1) Upon the Appllt:an(‘s submlsslun ol then |ax refund Form lor VA 2017‘ according to Seclmn 90 ol the ITA. the assessment lcr YA 2u17 ts a ueentea aseessrnent u.....rn ‘ SIN buzz-tl'Ftlst.nAaAHkvKMu «we. s.n.t luvlhnrwlll a. tn... a may t... nflnlnullly sun. dnuavlml VI .nuna vtmxl 1D 1| 12 13 14 is There was no appeai was lodged Via Farm 0 to the speuai Commissioners oi Income Tax (SCIT) regarding me assessment issued an 23 2 2015 Swan ihai nu appeai unuer Seclicn 99 of ihe ITA. Ihe assssmeni stand as valid am finai. The Wiramuda use on was decided by ihe Federal com on 9 12.2522 esiab rig lhat Sachcri AC aims ITA IS uricurisiiluiiorial Fncr io Wiramuda decision. the Respondent’: po n was me compensation received from compuisory aoquisiiiun 01 pmpmy heid as siock in irads aie iaxabie under Section AC oflhe ‘TA in Iighi nlme Respondent‘: pas on, the Appiicaril recognised lhaiihe oomperisaiion received (ram he oompuiwryacqui3i|i0ri Mme Land as M inmme and subiecied lhe same ID in VA 2017 suasaqueniiy, ihe Applicant aware eiihawuamuaa Decision hyiha Federai Conn of 912 2022, Amerigsi aihers‘ ihe Wiramuda Decision has been repnrled by news ouiieis W Malaysia, induding me sags and in me iagai anicla (mad ‘I Taxing or lnzdaquaie Compensatinn ihai is UnwrisIiiuiional7 by Tim Abdul Hamid Mohamed published In me currehi Law Journal Pursuaril to «he Wiramuda Detisiofl, oompensaiicn received by iandownersimm the compuiscry aoquisiimn ofprcperlies should not be suoieci in mooma lax under secmn AC is! ihe ITA On 21 2.2023, Ilia Applilzni issued a ietier in the Respondent The Applicanl isquesied |he Responderii to give sweet to me Wiramuda Decision and in discharge and ieiund the taxes relaiing in me ocmpensaiiori received ier the iand (nischargo Application) On 22 2 2023, «he Applicant was coniaclod by Encik Moria Hafizan, an ofiioev In me Cheras Bvanch oiihe iniaha Revenue Board (me) by ieiephona. in particular, she was inioimsd Iha| me IRE I Respondent VS unabie ia eerifiim ai ihis iundure, whelherlhey would be giving effecl ia the Wirariiuda Decision . , by discharging and reiunding taxes which have been paid by laxpayeis on oumperisaiiori received for lhe compulsory acquisition ai‘ than ‘and puisuarii IO Secimn 4C 01019 ‘TA Pin s M n ‘ sm mazmwusmaasmmu «mm. s.n.i ...is.mm .. i... a may he nflninniily mm. mm. VI .mia wax 15 17 13 19. 20. The umcer has also reques1ed the Applmant lo submrl ns revrsed Iax ddrnpmahon «or VA 2017 r e ,dn me pass that the carnpensauron from the compmsory acqmsmen of the Land Is not sumecl Io Income tax On 27.2.2023. the Apphcanl Issued snomar Vans! (0 ms Respondent atlachmg ore Appncanrs remsed lax pdrnpmahon lor VA 2017 as rsquesned by me nespdndenr, whxch was received by the Respondent on 3 3 2023 The Apphcanl has also requested icr the Respondsnrs wnllen confirmahon that the Apphcanfs Drsdhargs Apphcauon womd he allowed before 7 3 2023, rarhng which il wumd be consvamed K0 take .1 that me Respondent has deeded to rqecl me Drscharge Appnmhpn to date, the Apphcant has yet (0 reoerve a posihve response I sppmvar Of Me Apphcaru s Discharge Apphcauon on nhrs bests, me Resuondem rs deemed |0 have decrded on 73.202: lha| re wvll be rejscung ms Apphcanls msmerge Apphcahdn r.a., «he Respdndsnrs nedrsrdn, Th: ground: for ]u vcnal rlviuw 21 The gmunds of renal suughl are based on the oonlermon that me Respondenrs Decrsron was megax. in excess 0! aumonxy, rrrahonew / urveasonabler proceddreuy improper‘ made rn breach at the pnncrples olnalural justice and pmeedum fairness and in breach dl ms Appllmnfs Vegmmale expeclamns These ocnlemions are supported by sex/era! reasons among wmcn mcmde |he haudwrng. - 21.1 lllnnalily (a) The Respundem had sued umawfully by Iqechng the drscharging appucanpn and famng ed rrnplernem the wrramuda Dedsnnfli an The Respdnderu being a party in me prddsedrng ol Wvamuda Decwsxon, possesses commela awareness 07 the said decisrdn The Respondent a\3O nensms rmrn v...asr .1 ‘ srn buzz-n'FusLnAaAHkvKMu “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. d... It: may r... nrW\n|H|Y mm: dnuamnl VI muNa WM me legal counsel pmvrded by Ms Legnt Depanrnent whtch should have advised tnat tne Discharge Appllcahon ought to be anowee and me taxes pan: on tne eentpensauon repewed lar tne Land ougnt to be dtscnarged and revunded m light at tne Wtramuda DECVSIOFL (C) The Wtramuda Dectston ts binding on the Respondent as an arm 0' the axaculwe. The Respondent has no junsdlctton to tgnere the same Amongst atherst the Federal Court has heki tn Arumugam PIIIII V. Gavnmmunl ol M Iylll [C980] 2 MLJ ZIJ; [I950] I MLRA I27 mat a ectstan 07 any com 0' oompetem msdtetton IS bmdmg on Revenue as on any subtect ol the land‘ and mat a latlure by me Revenualo lake aclmn pursuanllo a court declslan VS name to be cnauenged by way or wdtclal revtew: (G) The Respondents Dectston nas exceeded us powers under the ITA in hgm at the vwremuda Deustun mat Sschon ac rs unoonsmuunnal. (e) Tne Respondenrs Declsmn alse violates the Apnlrcanrs ngms as guaranteed under Articles 13(2) and/er Amcle 95 dune Fe‘ and up The Respondenrs decxston lo lax me gems irvm me ocmpmsnry acqmemen or me Land ta mcome tax pursuant to Secttan AC at the In is dearly unlawtul In accurdanee wnn Wiramuda Declsmn Trus acuen has depnved the Applicant oi the used! tta tunes. Hence, the Respondent ought to compensate the Appficanl acco guy includmg tnterest on me owed retunds 21,2 Irratipnamy and unreasonablenne Tne Respondent has also Iclad inauonauy and unreasonably tn refusing to allow the Dlschalge Apphcalmn despne bemg aware at me Wlramuda Dectsmn To date, the Respondent nas Vaflad |o provtde any uahd reasens as |c why H snoutd no! nonour and imptenrent tne Wiremuda Dectston base 7 at n ‘ SIN buzz-uvFust.nAaAHkvKMu “Nun: s.n.t luvthnrwm e. med e may he nrW\n|U|y -mm: dnunmnl VI mum Wm! 21,3 Loglllmm Expectations The Reep:mden|'s acunn or lnaeuen nee cleeny vrelaled me Applreanrs legldrnale expeclallene lhel me Respendenl would adhere and lrnplenlenl lne law. pemeularly as eslahlished by me Federal Coun ln lne wuemude neclslon can «or me Pumlve Rupendem 22 23. 24 25 26 27 The Pmalive Respondenl euennle lnel me Agplieanl In lms ease has lnlerred a deemed declslon from me Pulauve Respondents non- reply to me Applleenrs leuer dated on or belnre 6.3 2023 (lm lne Inner deled 21.2 2023) and on er beiara 73,2023 llor lhe leller daled 27.2 2023). ms nurwesporlses IS regarded as e “declsldrr by me Pumnve Respondent acwrdlrlg to me Applleenrs. Tne Pmallve Respondenl eonlends met me norueply lo the Appllcanrs lellers cannot be lnlernrelefl as a deemed declslnn by me Pumlve Respondenl and we enell nol amenable In an apuhcallnn lo! judlciar revlew under order 53 dime ROC rnerelore, lms appllmudn ls premahlrel lnvolaus, vexaucus‘ abuse df pmcess and does ndl lumll all lne ha c requlremerll 0! order 53 Rule 2(4)o1Ihe Roe whlch requlres lnal me person who are enulle |o nle Judlclal Rel/law Annllcalion IS a persun who are aflecled by the declslon M the publre admdnly Acwrdlng Io Pulalwe Reependenl. lne Appllcanl IS essenually atlempllng Io queen me declslon dune Putanve Respondent ler lne VA 2017 by dylng lo lumpstan a tween dale olappllceoon lodudlclal Revlew Apphcallun The Appllcanrs leave appllcallon (or ludlclal rewew was med am of lune and lnere ls no appllceuen lor exlenslon av me is Ned The Putallve Rape:-den: submlls me: me crux or me Avulicenrs appllcalmn lcr ludldal IBVIGW eeldre nus Honourable ceun .s against the daclslorl of the Fulallve Respondent an 25.2 2018 [or ‘(A 2017 where lne Appllcanl seeks an order to quash lne Said declslun and also IO remnd lhe paid lax by me Apphranl mum 11 ‘ srn buzz-ul'Fusl.uAaAHkvKMu «we. Sum navlhnrwm be UIQG a may r... edn.l-y sun. dnuavlml VI mane Wm! 28 The duration belweerl the oeclslpn made by the Respondent lor VA 2017 whlch was dated on 25 2.2013 and the date oi the Applicants ntrrrp of this leave appllcallon on 5.3 2023 is approximately 5 years 29 The Fulahve Respondent suornlts that tnpugh tne olscretlon is still with the court to aot oy way ovluarcral review in revenue cases, the arder ofcerliorart will not be Issued unless the Applicant eoulo prove that there ls an apparent lack otrunsorotton or blatant lerture by the Rasponaent to pertorm sI.s(u|oryduIy or there ls a severe braach oi natural iustloe caused by the Respondent an easel: on In: present case lacls, when the assessment tor VA 2m 7 was Issued try the Putaltve Reswnderll upon the Appltcarll supmlt tnerr tax return. no appeal were made Thls lmplied that the Appllcartx oonoeoeo to the assessment ll the Court allows me Appltcartls judicial review appllcallenl ll would mean tnls Calm bypasslrlg the son. 31 The Fulatlve Respondent Submits the Iacls and stluatton lrl (hls Instant case dtfler from those ln the Wlramuda Decision. ln Wltamuda, the challenge quesltaned In: va|ldl|y ol Secllart 4:: ol me ITA subsequent to an audilr leadlng to the tssuancs of an Addltmrtal Assessrrterll for VA 2015 However‘ lrl this case‘ the Appllcartl did nu| gel audited and they declared and labelled the tztmpertsallorl as pan of Ihalr stock lrt trade. 32 Based on paragraph 13 or the Attloavtt In support amrnteo by ‘fall Swee Fang, the Pmallve Resporldcnl supmtts that the Appllcarll admitted that pnpr to the Vlfirantuda Daclslanu tne Putative Responuents pcslhon was in: compensahon veoelved frum oompulsory acoul ion or property help as stock in trade was taxable ttnper Section 4c oi the ITA in e wllh the Pulallve Respondent‘: position, the Applicant remgnlzed the compensation tmrn the compulsory acquisition or the Land as its lncama and subjected to income tax VI VA 2ot7 :53 Tnerolore. based on the abovo ppreprepn, tne Anpllcarll ounng tna supmlssipns otthelr VA 2ot7 was omrlplylrlg with Secllorl 4c oi the int, which was men a valid law. The exnlplt TB—5 exptlcltty lrldlcaled that the Applicant filed tnelr e»C on 25 2 zeta tor VA 2017 abidlng to the prevalling Valld law at that lime Duncan? ‘ srn buzz-ul'Fust.uAoAHkvKMu “None Smnl luvlhnrwlll r. u... e mi r... pflnlnnllly MIMI dnuavlml VI .nuuo ml 34 Thus, the Pulalwe Respondents argued that \he order in Bxhlbll Tim me Federal court, should be read prcspec|lvelylorolheriuture assessmeril and nul relrcspacllvely ler other cases 35. The decision or me Federal Courl was made on 912.2022. There was no menllnrl In the Ordev that We law would be read mtmspecllvely rlor DNSDECIWE. In such 5l||AaKlon, ans must luck at each sl|I1all0fI Yhe Pulalive Rspundenl urged lhis Oourl In lake mm mnsiuaralion me casa ul Somnnyih Jnya Sun and v. Parlladbir Tanah nuran nulu Llngat and anumor cm mm : MLJ 551; [zany A MLRA 554; [2017] 5 cu 525; [2017] 4 AMR ‘I13 Ind Vlgnllh Nlldu 1/lKupnunmy Nlldu V. Prim] Bonlnn Sdn Bill! a. Anmmr Appeal [2023] 3 MLRA :33; [ma] 4 cu 715; [2023] 2 MLJ 775 and |0 bake it as prospective ruling Tho uw as We Federal Conn VI WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bllfl v. Tonaga Nuional am [2012] 4 cu 415; mu] 4 MLRA 257: [2012] A Mu no at am. speaking mrougri Surlyadi Hallni Omar FCJ las ns men was) held A Leave may be granlea ii me lava apphcallorl IS mi mmranl Mas hvvuloui. ma .1 leave is graniaa nn arguable case in lawn M granllng me renal saugrn an we subslanlive nannng may he (he resultant nulmme A rider mun he zllached (0 me apohcalmn incngn i 5 unless lne mailer (Dr ludlclil ravlew is lmeruhll In Mina: rovlnw iluululaly no means may be envluqud 37 The Ies| laid down 90! leave Ia commence a wdlclal review in WRP Asin Pacillu: sun aria (Iuprx) are as lcuows 37 1 whelher the sumac: manner is amenable lo limicial review, and rl so 37.2 lrorrl me rnacanals avallacla, wflemer me apnllcalion rs frlvnlous and ii Vial inaugm as lnvolousl lo consider Olal lria appllcanl has an arguable case (0 obtain me relief sougrrl al me sunslanlwa hearing aa The principles governing appllcallarlslar leave to commence judicial review proceedings have also been set cm In Tang Kwor Him & Oil V. PIlIfi|ll|.l§llI Dlnlhlrll Nlllunll Ella G: Uri [2006] I u...msru ‘ sr~ R3:E-uTFLlSmIwAHkvKMu “Nana s.nn nuvlhnrwm a. med w my r... nflfllnnflly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl aFluNa war

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12BNCC-22-06/2022

PERAYU WIN-LEAD AIR CONDITIONING SDN BHD RESPONDEN SRICOOL ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Appeal after full trial before the Sessions Court - Whether appellate intervention is necessary - No error in Sessions Court's findings on the facts - Variation works not established

18/12/2023

YA Tuan Ong Chee Kwan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=18d205dc-e2e4-4cd0-b36a-f82a664d3081&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL APPEAL NO.: WA-12BNCC-22-06/2022 BETWEEN WIN-LEAD AIR CONDITIONING SDN. BHD. [Company No.: 821458-W] … APPELANT AND SRICOOL ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. [Company No.: 476441-A) …RESPONDENT JUDGMENT [1] This Appellant’s appeal is against my decision dismissing its appeal against the judgment of the learned Session Court Judge allowing the Respondent’s claim for a declaration of a Final Account that the amount due from the Respondent to the Appellant under its sub- contract was RM 11,398.87 and dismissing the Appellant’s Counterclaim for the sum of RM 181,258.44 (out of which is the sum of RM 128,014.00 allegedly for variation works) after full trial. [2] The facts of the case are adequately set out in the Grounds of Judgment by the learned Session Court Judge and will not be repeated. 18/12/2023 15:45:43 WA-12BNCC-22-06/2022 Kand. 29 S/N 3AXSGOTi0EyzavgqZk0wgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [3] Having read the Grounds of Judgment by the learned Session Court Judge, I found that the Appellant has not shown to the satisfaction of this Court that appellate intervention is required in this case. The learned Session Court has found that: a) The Appellant had never objected to the back charges and retention sums in all the 33 Certificates of Payment and accordingly, it does not lie in the Appellant’s mouth to now contend that the Respondent was not entitled to deduct the back charges and retention sums of RM 50,627.00. In fact, contrary to the Appellant’s contention, the Work Order under SCE/SCWL/PAVI/ JO1601001 dated 29.1.2016 expressly stipulates for retention sum: “9. Retention Sum: 10% of total work done during construction stage. 5% of the total contract sum release upon CPC and remaining 5% upon final account after Certificate of Make Good Defect (CMGD) is issued by the Architect.” “30. Even though you had completed your sub-contract work and handover to us during the Defect Liability Period, in the event that you do not attend to any complaint and to rectify the fault, we reserve the right to engage third party to rectify the aforesaid defect work and back charge to you. It is at our sole discretion to decide on the deduction of the retention sum which is held by us for your failure to attend the complaint”. b) Specifically, on the back charges, the Appellant’s witness had confirmed that they had never challenged the Respondent’s right to impose back charges: S/N 3AXSGOTi0EyzavgqZk0wgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 “Q: Just now the Defendant lawyer refer you to your witness statement, question no 8 then you look at page number 7, there is a table schedule there, there is column back charges, for example we have cert no 6, then you have amount back charge. Then no 8, so my question to you, had at any time when these back charges been imposed, the Defendant objected to it, or send any indication said I do not agree with these back charges to the Plaintiff. A: No, Defendant accepted it. He signs on the payment certificate” c) As regards the variation claim of RM 128,014.00, the parties had agreed to an agreed process for variation claims and the Appellant has not shown that the aforesaid variation sum had been verified, valued and approved for payment by the Site Supervisor, Project Engineer and the Project Manager [See: Clause 8 of the Job Order]. The Respondent has also highlighted the fact that during cross examination, the Appellant’s witnesses had confirmed that there was no written instruction expressly authorising the variation works; “It is noted that the variation claims made by the Appellant are without written instructions by the Respondent. The Appellant's witness, SD-1 has also admitted to the same during cross examination as follows:- Q Rujuk tab 86 dalam pernyataan saksi 308- 313 ditab no 86 - setuju extra works yang didakwa dijalankan oleh Appellant tiada memo yang dikeluarkan oleh Plaintif? A Tiada memo. S/N 3AXSGOTi0EyzavgqZk0wgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Q Rujuk tab 87, extra work no 14, dalam pernyataan saksi merujuk kepada 318,319,320 dan gambar gambar lukisan 312 dan 313 - setuju bahawa tiada memo untuk extra works di isukan oleh Plaintif? A Tiada memo. Q Tab 88 extra work no 15 ms 326 sehingga 330, tiada memo yang di Isukan oleh Plaintif? A Setuju tiada memo. Q Tab 89 extra work 16, pernyataan saksi merujuk kepada muka surat 335 shingga 338, tiada memo yang di isukan oleh Plaintif? A Setuju tiada memo. Q Extra work no 19 tab 92 ms 362 sehingga 366 tiada memo yang di Isukan oleh Plaintif? A Setuju tiada. Q Tab 93 Extra work no 20 ms 372 shingga 376 tiada memo yang dilsukan oleh Plaintif? A Setuju tiada memo Q Extra work no 21 tab 94 ms 382 sehingga 386 tiada memo yang dilsukan oleh Plaintif? A Setuju tiada memo. Q Extra work no 22 tab 95 ms 392 sehingga 396 tiada memo yang dilsukan oleh Plaintif? A Setuju tiada memo” d) The Appellant’s witness also confirmed that the amount claimed for the variation works was ‘marked-up’. In fact, there was no joint inspection in respect of the purported variation works at all. The Appellant was unable to demonstrate to the S/N 3AXSGOTi0EyzavgqZk0wgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Court that the learned Session Court Judge erred in coming to her conclusion that only RM21,159.27 was payable to the Appellant as variation works; e) The Appellant was unable to show why the sum of RM2,617.44 that was deducted from the progress claims SRIV-1091017 and SRIVN 1902014 were wrong. [4] For the above reasons, I dismissed the Appellant’s appeal with costs. Dated the 18th day of December 2023 ONG CHEE KWAN Judge of the High Court of Malaya High Court of Kuala Lumpur, NCC2 Counsel: 1. Mr. Muhammad Khairuddin Annuar for Plaintiff Messrs. Yoon & Partners (Kuala Lumpur) 2. Mr. Brian Ernest Cumming together with Mr. Yip Man Fei (PDK) for Defendant Messrs. Gideon Tan Razali Zaini (Petaling Jaya) S/N 3AXSGOTi0EyzavgqZk0wgQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CG-83-111-06/2022

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] TERTUDUH MURALEY A/L CHINNAPAYAN

[1] For this court to determine whether there is a duplicity of the charge proffered against the accused, this court must first examine whether the charge framed against the accused contains more than one offence.[2] In our present case, the accused was charged under Section 45A (1) of the RTA. Hence, for this court to determine whether the charge framed against the accused contains more than one offence, this court must first determine whether Section 45A (1) of the RTA contains three distinct offences or only contains one offence. [3] It is my findings that Section 45A (1) of the RTA provides 3 distinct offences and the reasons for my findings are anchored on the following three grounds:a) Section 45A of the RTA if read harmoniously with Section 45B of the RTA to Section 45G of the RTA provides 3 distinct offences.b) Section 45A (1) of the RTA should be read disjunctively and a literal approach should be applied in interpreting the provision; andc) Perusal of the Hansard shows that the parliament intends to create 3 distinct offences.[4] Based on the above provisions, Section 45A to Section 45G of the RTA provides a detailed explanation of how specimens should be taken, who should take them, where they should be taken, and the presumption of their admissibility as evidence in court. It also outlines the defence that the accused can rely on to defend their case. [5] It is pertinent to emphasise that according to Section 45C (5) of the RTA, a police officer, based on medical advice, can decide which type of specimen (blood or urine) to collect from the accused. This provision may imply that there is a distinction between the two types of specimens.[6] Upon analysing Section 45F (3) of the RTA, it appears that a specimen of blood is only admissible as evidence if it was taken from the accused by a government medical officer. Therefore, it can be inferred that there may be a difference in the treatment of blood or urine specimens.[7] Hence, it is my finding that Section 45A of the RTA if read harmoniously with Section 45B of the RTA to Section 45G of the RTA provides 3 distinct offences.[8] It is my view that Section 45A (1) of the RTA creates three distinct offences as the word 'or' is disjunctive in nature. Hence, the section should be read disjunctively.[9] Based on the Hansard above, it can be seen that the Parliament intends to make it an offence for a person who is driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and hence the amendment of the prescribed limit was initiated. [10] The prescribed limit of the alcohol on the breath of the accused, the blood of the accused or the urine of the accused would be crucial factors in determining whether the accused had committed an offence under Section 45A (1) of the RTA.[11] Thus, it is my finding that the parliament intends to create 3 distinct offences in Section 45A (1) of the RTA.[12] the duplicity of the charge cannot be cured under Section 422 of the CPC if the accused is confused or prejudiced with the charge framed against him and the duplicity of the charge has caused a miscarriage of justice to the accused.[13] Hence, based on the Federal Court case above, if the charge is in contravention of section 163 of the CPC, the charge is illegal and the charge cannot be cured by section 422 of the CPC as a charge must contain one offence and no more.

18/12/2023

Puan Qasiratul Jannah Usmani Binti Othman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=504ad254-4cff-4841-a6a0-4005a1aef2a5&Inline=true

CAMERON HIGHLANDS MAGISTRATE COURT IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR CASE NUMBER: CG-83-111-06/2022 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v MURALEY A/L CHINNAPAYAN (NRIC: 700402-06-5403) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A) Introduction [1] These are my grounds of judgment in respect of an order of acquittal and discharge granted to the accused for the offence charged under Section 45A (1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA). Below are my reasons for ordering such an order. B) Background Facts Charge [2] On 23 June 2022, the Accused was charged under Section 45A of the RTA as follows: Pertuduhan Bahawa kamu pada 03/11/2021 jam lebih kurang 2035 hrs di tempat letak kenderaan The Quintek, Tanah Rata dalam daerah Cameron Highlands, dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur sebagai pemandu kenderaan m/van jenis Nissan Vanette nombor pendaftaran ADS 6604 telah memandu kenderaan dengan tahap alkohol dalam darah 18/12/2023 12:59:22 CG-83-111-06/2022 Kand. 31 S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dan air kencing kamu yang melebihi had yang ditetapkan di bawah seksyen 45G Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987. Hasil ujian spesimen alkohol dalam darah adalah sebanyak 236mg/100ml dan ujian spesimen alkohol dalam air kencing sebanyak 351mg/100ml. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 45A Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen yang sama. Hukuman: Penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun dan denda tidak kurang daripada sepuluh ribu ringgit dan tidak lebih tiga puluh ribu ringgit dan hilang kelayakan lesen tidak kurang dua tahun. [3] On the first day of the trial i.e., on 7 November 2022 and before the learned DPP had called the first prosecution witness, the learned Defence Counsel had put on record his trouble with the framing of the charge. [4] In gist, the learned Defence Counsel argued that the charge is defective as the charge had stated ‘alkohol dalam darah dan air kencing’ which is contrary to Section 45A (1) of the RTA as the section stated that ‘alcohol in his body that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine’. The key word is ‘or’ and not ‘and’. Hence, according to the learned Defence Counsel, the charge is defective. [5] The learned DPP on the other hand argued that the charge was not defective as the charge was framed based on the Chemist Report. The prosecution further argued that the prosecution would prove during trial that both the accused blood and urine levels were more than allowed by the law. The learned DPP further submitted that even if the charge is defective, the prosecution can always make an application to amend the charge. [6] Consequently, I then directed parties to submit this issue at the end of the Prosecution Case. It is also appropriate at this juncture to note that until today, based on the court’s record, the prosecution has yet to make any amendment to the Charge. S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal C) FINDINGS [7] Based on the parties’ argument, I have then narrowed the arguments into three issues: a) Whether there is a duplicity of charge; b) Whether duplicity of charge can be cured under section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CPC’); and c) Whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused. Duplicity of charge [8] Before this court embarks on determining whether there is a duplicity of charge proffered against the accused, it is appropriate at this juncture to understand what constitutes a duplicity of charge. [9] Section 163 of the CPC states that every charge should only contain a single offence and must be tried separately except in the cases mentioned in sections 164, 165, 166 and 170 of the CPC. For convenience, Section 163 of the CPC is reproduced as follows: For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in sections 164, 165, 166 and 170. [Emphasis added] [10] The Federal Court in the case of Ravindran Ramasamy v. PP [2015] 3 CLJ 421 had explained the nexus between Section 163 of the CPC and the effect of the duplicity in a charge as follows: [5] Section 163 of the CPC provides that "for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in ss. 164, 165, 166 and 170 ". Duplicity is not allowed (Jagar Singh v. PP [1936] 1 LNS 25; [1936] 1 MLJ 92). "As regards duplicity, the leading English authority on the subject is the case of Charles Wilmot v. Rex 24 Cr App R 63 where the Lord Chief Justice quotes with approval the following passage from the judgment of S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Avory J in Rex v. Surrey Justices ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 KB 450 at p. 452: 'It is an elementary principle that an information must not charge offences in the alternative, since the defendant cannot then know with precision with what he is charged, and of what he is convicted, and may be prevented on a future occasion from pleading 'autrefois convict' (Yap Liow Swee v. PP [1937] 1 LNS 93; [1937] 1 MLJ 225). "A charge is only bad for duplicity when it alleges facts constituting two different activities; it is legitimate to charge in a single charge one activity even though that activity might involve more than one act" (Jemmison v. Priddle [1972] 1 All ER 539 per Lord Widgery CJ). [6] Latent duplicity is committed when a single charge describes more than one offence. "Latent duplicity (also called 'latent ambiguity' or 'latent uncertainty') [is] where a single charge alleges the commission of only one offence, but the evidence led by the prosecution in relation to the charge discloses a number of separate offences, all of which could fit the allegation described in the charge" (Updates on legal developments by the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office dated 28 April 2014: 'Double or nothing' - The rule against duplicity in charging criminal offences.) But to establish duplicity in a charge, it is not enough to show that the section or paragraph under which the accused is charged contemplated two offences; it is necessary to go further and show that both offences have been included in the same charge, thus embarrassing the accused in his defence and making it impossible for him to plead autrefois convict in respect of either of the alternatives (Saw Tuan Cheong v. PP [1946] 1 LNS 31; [1946] 1 MLJ 143). Ambiguity and latent duplicity in the charge must be such as to have caused a miscarriage of justice (Tai Chai Keh v. PP [1948] 1 LNS 122; [1948-1949] 1 MLJ 105). [Emphasis added] [11] Guided by the above authority, this court takes cognizance that: a) a charge is only bad for duplicity when it alleges facts constituting two different activities; it is legitimate to charge in a single charge one activity even though that activity might involve more than one act; b) to establish duplicity in a charge, it is not enough to show that the section or paragraph under which the accused is charged contemplated two offences; it is necessary to go further and show that both offences have been included in the same charge, thus embarrassing the accused in his defence and making it impossible for him to plead autrefois convict in respect of either of the alternatives; c) ambiguity and latent duplicity in the charge must be such as to have caused a miscarriage of justice. S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WHETHER THERE IS A DUPLICITY OF CHARGE PROFFERED AGAINST THE ACCUSED [12] For this court to determine whether there is a duplicity of the charge proffered against the accused, this court must first examine whether the charge framed against the accused contains more than one offence. [13] In our present case, the accused was charged under Section 45A (1) of the RTA. Hence, for this court to determine whether the charge framed against the accused contains more than one offence, this court must first determine whether Section 45A (1) of the RTA contains three distinct offences or only contains one offence. [14] In other words, this court has to determine whether the wording in Section 45A (1) of the RTA which states that ‘Any person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle or when in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, has so much alcohol in his body that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit’ contains three distinct offences or only contains one offence. [15] For convenience, Section 45A (1) of the RTA is reproduced below: Section 45A Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit (1) Any person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle or when in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, has so much alcohol in his body that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit, shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine of not less than ten thousand ringgit and not more than thirty thousand ringgit and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and a fine of not less than twenty thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit. [Emphasis added] [16] It is my findings that Section 45A (1) of the RTA provides 3 distinct offences and the reasons for my findings are anchored on the following three grounds: a) Section 45A of the RTA if read harmoniously with Section 45B of the RTA to Section 45G of the RTA provides 3 distinct offences. S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal b) Section 45A (1) of the RTA should be read disjunctively and a literal approach should be applied in interpreting the provision; and c) Perusal of the Hansard shows that the parliament intends to create 3 distinct offences. [17] Below are the reasons that led me to the findings mentioned above. a) Section 45A of the RTA if read harmoniously with Section 45B of the RTA to Section 45G of the RTA provides 3 distinct offences. [18] It is my view that Section 45A (1) of the RTA must be read together with Section 45A (2) of the RTA and Section 45G (1) of the RTA. [19] Section 45A (2) of the RTA and Section 45G (1) of the RTA are reproduced below: Section 45A (2) of the RTA (2) It is a defence or a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit. Section 45G (1) of the RTA: Interpretation of sections 44 and 45B to 45F (1) For the purposes of sections 44 and 45B to 45F- "prescribed limit" means- (a) 22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; (b) 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood; or (c) 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine. [Emphasis added] [20] It's important to emphasise that under Section 45G (1) of the RTA, each type of specimen has a specific prescribed limit that must be proven by the prosecution to bring charges against the accused. This means that different types of specimens require different elements or ingredients of the offence to be established by the prosecution. S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [21] Hence, it is my view that from the reading of Section 45A (1) of the RTA, Section 45A (2) of the RTA and Section 45G (1) of the RTA it can be interpreted that Section 45A (1) of the RTA creates three distinct offences namely: i. Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding 22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres in his breath. ii. Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres in his blood. iii. Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres in his urine. [22] To encapsulate Section 45A (1) of the RTA, Section 45A (2) of the RTA and Section 45G (1) of the RTA, a person is only committing an offence under Section 45A (1) of the RTA if he is driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit. [23] The prescribed limit may be measured or proven by collecting the accused’s specimen of breath, blood or urine. [24] If the amount of alcohol on the breath of the accused exceeds 22 microgrammes in 100 millilitres, or the amount of alcohol in the blood of the accused exceeds 50 milligrammes in 100 millilitres, or the amount of alcohol in the urine of the accused exceeds 67 milligrammes in 100 millilitres, while driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle, then the accused will be considered to have committed an offence under Section 45A (1) of the RTA. [25] However, it is a legal defence for a person who is charged with an offence under Section 45A (1) of the RTA to prove that at the time of the alleged offence, there was no likelihood of them driving the vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in their breath, blood, or urine was likely to exceed the prescribed limit. [26] My view that Section 45A (1) of the RTA creates three distinct offences is further supported by reading Section 45A (1) of the RTA harmoniously with Section 45A (2) of the RTA, Section 45B of the RTA, Section 45C of the RTA, Section 45D of the RTA, Section 45E of the RTA, Section 45F of the RTA and Section 45G of the RTA. [27] Section 45B of the RTA, Section 45C of the RTA, Section 45D of the RTA, Section 45E of the RTA and Section 45F of the RTA are reproduced below: S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45B. Breath test (1) Where a police officer in uniform has reasonable cause to suspect— (a)that a person has committed an offence under section 44 or 45 involving intoxicating liquor or under section 45A; or (b)that a person was the driver of or attempted to drive or was in charge of a motor vehicle in an accident involving one or more vehicles on a road or other public place, he may, subject to section 45D, require that person to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test. (2) A person may be required under subsection (1) to provide a specimen either at or near the place where the requirement is made or, if the requirement is made under paragraph (1)(b) and the police officer making the requirement thinks fit, at a police station specified by the police officer. (3) A breath test required under subsection (1) shall be conducted by the police officer making the requirement or any other police officer. (4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen of breath when required to do so in pursuance of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine of not less than ten thousand ringgit and not more than thirty thousand ringgit and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and a fine of not less than twenty thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit. (4A) A person convicted under this section shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than two years from the date of the conviction and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, be disqualified for a period of not less than five years from the date of the conviction. (4B) Notwithstanding subsections (4) and (4A), where a person who is a holder of a probationary driving licence is convicted under this section, the court shall revoke his driving licence. (5) A police officer in uniform may arrest a person without warrant if— (a)as a result of a breath test he has reasonable cause to suspect that the proportion of alcohol in that person’s breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit; or (b)that person has failed to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test when required to do so in pursuance of this section and the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that he has alcohol in his body, but a person shall not be arrested by virtue of this subsection when he is at a hospital as a patient. [Emphasis added] S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45C Provision of specimen for analysis (1) In the course of an investigation whether a person has committed an offence under section 44 or 45 involving intoxicating liquor or under section 45A a police officer may, subject to the provisions of this section and to section 45D, require him- (a) to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of a prescribed breathanalyser; or (b) to provide a specimen of blood or urine for a laboratory test, notwithstanding that he has been required to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test under subsection 45B(1). (2) A requirement under this section to provide a specimen of breath can only be made at a police station. (3) A breath test under this section shall only be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of sergeant or by an officer in charge of a police station and shall only be conducted at a police station. (4) A requirement under this section to provide a specimen of blood or urine can only be made at a police station or at a hospital, but it cannot be made at a police station unless- (a) the police officer making the requirement has reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a specimen of breath cannot be provided or should not be required; or (b) at the time the requirement is made, the prescribed breathanalyser is not available at the police station or it is for any other reason not practicable to use the breathanalyser, and may be made notwithstanding that the person required to provide the specimen has already provided or been required to provide two specimens of breath. (5) Where a specimen other than a specimen of breath is required, the police officer making the requirement shall, subject to medical advice, decide whether it is to be a specimen of blood or urine. (6) A person who without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine of not less than ten thousand ringgit and not more than thirty thousand ringgit and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and a fine of not less than twenty thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit. (6A) A person convicted under this section shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than two years from the date of the conviction and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, be disqualified for a period of not less than five years from the date of the conviction. S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (6B) Notwithstanding subsections (6) and (6A), where a person who is a holder of a probationary driving licence is convicted under this section, the court shall thereupon revoke his driving licence. [Emphasis added] 45D Protection of hospital patient (1) A person who is at a hospital as a patient shall not be required to provide a specimen for a breath test or to provide a specimen of blood or urine for a laboratory test unless the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge of his case authorises it and the specimen is to be provided at the hospital. (2) The registered medical practitioner referred to in subsection (1) shall not authorise a specimen to be taken where it would be prejudicial to the proper care and treatment of the patient. [Emphasis added] 45E Detention (1) A person required to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine may thereafter be detained at a police station until it appears to a police officer that were that person then driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road, he would not be committing an offence under section 44 or 45 involving intoxicating liquor or under section 45A, but such period of detention shall not exceed twenty-four hours. (2) A person shall not be detained in pursuance of this section if it appears to a police officer that by reason of his condition there is no likelihood of his driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle. [Emphasis added] 45F Evidence in proceedings for an offence under sections 44 and 45 involving intoxicating liquor and section 45A (1) In proceedings for an offence under section 44 or 45 involving intoxicating liquor or in proceedings for an offence under section 45A, evidence of the proportion of alcohol in a specimen of breath, blood or urine provided by the accused shall be taken into account and it shall be assumed that the proportion of alcohol in the accused's breath, blood or urine at the time of the alleged offence was not less than in the specimen; but the assumption shall not be made if the accused proves- S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) that he consumed alcohol after he had ceased to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place and before he provided the specimen; and (b) that had he not done so the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine would not have exceeded the prescribed limit and, if the proceedings are for an offence under section 44 or 45 involving intoxicating liquor, would not have been such as to make him incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. (2) Evidence of the proportion of alcohol in a specimen of breath, blood or urine may, subject to subsections (4) and (5), be given by the production of a document or documents purporting to be either- (a) a statement automatically produced by a prescribed breathanalyser and a certificate signed by a police officer (which may but need not be contained in the same document as the statement) that the statement relates to a specimen provided by the accused at the date and time shown in the statement; or (b) a certificate signed by a government medical practitioner or government chemist as to the proportion of alcohol found in a specimen of blood or urine identified in the certificate. (3) A specimen of blood shall be disregarded unless it was taken from the accused by a government medical officer; and evidence that a specimen of blood was so taken may be given by the production of a document purporting to certify that fact and signed by a government medical officer. (4) A document purporting to be such a statement or such a certificate, or both, as is mentioned in subsection (2) is admissible in evidence on behalf of the prosecution in pursuance of this section only if a copy of it either has been handed to the accused when the document was produced or has been served on him not later than seven days before the hearing, and any other document is so admissible only if a copy of it has been served on the accused not later than seven days before the hearing; but a document purporting to be a certificate (or so much of a document as purports to be a certificate) is not so admissible if the accused, not later than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the court may in special circumstances allow, has served notice on the prosecution requiring the attendance at the hearing of the person by whom the document purports to be signed. (5) Where, at the time a specimen of blood or urine was provided by the accused, he asked to be supplied with such a specimen, evidence of the proportion of alcohol in the specimen is not admissible on behalf of the prosecution unless- (a) the specimen in which the alcohol was found is one of two parts into which the specimen provided by the accused was divided at the time it was provided; and (b) the other part was supplied to the accused. (6) A copy of a certificate required by this section to be served on the accused or a notice required by this section to be served on the prosecution may be served personally or sent by registered post. [Emphasis added] S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [28] Based on the above provisions, Section 45A to Section 45G of the RTA provides a detailed explanation of how specimens should be taken, who should take them, where they should be taken, and the presumption of their admissibility as evidence in court. It also outlines the defence that the accused can rely on to defend their case. [29] It is pertinent to emphasise that according to Section 45C (5) of the RTA, a police officer, based on medical advice, can decide which type of specimen (blood or urine) to collect from the accused. This provision may imply that there is a distinction between the two types of specimens. [30] Upon analysing Section 45F (3) of the RTA, it appears that a specimen of blood is only admissible as evidence if it was taken from the accused by a government medical officer. Therefore, it can be inferred that there may be a difference in the treatment of blood or urine specimens. [31] Hence, it is my finding that Section 45A of the RTA if read harmoniously with Section 45B of the RTA to Section 45G of the RTA provides 3 distinct offences. b) Section 45A (1) of the RTA should be read disjunctively and a literal approach should be applied in interpreting the provision. [32] It is my view that Section 45A (1) of the RTA creates three distinct offences as the word 'or' is disjunctive in nature. Hence, the section should be read disjunctively. [33] My view is guided by the interpretation applied by a High Court case of PP v. Mat Zali Lahman [2010] 3 CLJ 354 where the learned Judge had interpreted Section 41 (1) of the RTA as follows: [9] In my view there are three distinct offences under this section because the use of the word "or" which is disjunctive. They are: 1) by driving a motor vehicle recklessly; 2) by driving a motor vehicle at a speed; 3) by driving a motor vehicle in a manner which having regard to all circumstances (including the nature, condition and size of the road, and the S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal amount of traffic which is or might be expected to be on the road) is dangerous to the public; 4) either one of the abovementioned driving has cause the death of a person. [Emphasis added] [34] Hence, it is my finding that Section 45A (1) of the RTA should be read disjunctively and a literal approach should be applied in interpreting the provision due to the word ‘or’. c) Perusal of the Hansard shows that the parliament intends to create 3 distinct offences. [35] A perusal of the Hansard has shown that the parliament intends to create 3 distinct offences in Section 45A (1) of the RTA. The Hansard is reproduced as follows: RANG UNDANG-UNDANG RANG UNDANG-UNDANG PENGANGKUTAN JALAN (PINDAAN) 2020 Bacaan Kali Yang Kedua dan Ketiga 11.36 pg. Menteri Pengangkutan [Datuk Seri Ir. Dr. Wee Ka Siong]: Tuan Yang di- Pertua, saya mohon mencadangkan rang undang-undang bernama suatu akta untuk meminda Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 dibacakan kali yang kedua sekarang. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, untuk makluman Dewan yang mulia ini Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 atau Akta 333 telah mula berkuat kuasa mulai tahun 1987. Objektif utama Akta 333 adalah bertujuan untuk menyediakan suatu persekitaran pemanduan dan pengedaran lalu lintas yang seragam, selamat dan efisien di atas jalan raya. Perkara ini dicapai menerusi aspek pengawalseliaan dan penetapan peraturan-peraturan berkaitan pembinaan dan penggunaan kenderaan, peraturan pendaftaran dan pelesenan kenderaan yang akan digunakan di atas jalan, pengawalseliaan ke atas tahap kecekapan, competency dan pelesenan pemandu serta penetapan peraturan-peraturan jalan raya dan lalu lintas. …. S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Berkaitan dengan aspek keselamatan di atas jalan raya, isu kemalangan maut yang disebabkan oleh pemandu yang memandu di bawah pengaruh alkohol adalah merupakan suatu perkara yang amat dipandang serius oleh kerajaan khususnya Kementerian Pengangkutan. Seperti umum mengetahuinya, kebelakangan ini kemalangan maut melibatkan pemandu mabuk semakin kerap berlaku dan dilaporkan di dalam media massa. Sekiranya perkara ini tidak ditangani dengan serius dan secara holistik, ia akan membawa kesan yang amat negatif kepada orang ramai serta pengguna jalan raya lain yang tidak bersalah. Impak sesuatu kemalangan itu terutamanya yang menyebabkan kecederaan kekal atau kematian adalah amat buruk ke atas ahli keluarga atau waris mangsa yang terlibat. Selain itu, setiap kemalangan tidak kira sama ada melibatkan kecederaan atau kematian akan menimbulkan implikasi kewangan yang tinggi kepada kerajaan sama ada menerusi kos pembaikan, kos kehilangan efficiency ekonomi dan kos rawatan kesihatan. Oleh yang demikian, sebagai salah satu langkah utama bagi meningkatkan kesedaran dan bagi menjadi satu bentuk pencegahan pengajaran deterrence kepada orang ramai peruntukan-peruntukan Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 iaitu Akta 333 yang berkaitan dengan kesalahan memandu tidak mematuhi peraturan jalan raya sama ada menyebabkan kematian atau kecederaan akan dipinda. Antara lain, pindaan akan melibatkan peningkatan kadar hukuman atau penalti selain menjadikan hukuman penjara sebagai satu bentuk hukuman yang mandatori bagi kesalahan yang berkenaan. … Ketujuh, fasal 8 adalah bertujuan meminda seksyen 45A iaitu berkaitan kesalahan memandu atau menjaga kenderaan motor dengan kepekatan alkohol melebihi had yang ditetapkan. Bagi seksyen 45A, hukuman penjara telah ditetapkan sebagai mandatori untuk menjadi satu bentuk pengajaran kepada orang ramai agar tidak memandu apabila telah mengambil minuman beralkohol. Hukuman sedia ada iaitu denda tidak kurang daripada RM1,000 dan tidak lebih daripada RM6,000 dan boleh juga di penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi 12 bulan. Dalam hal sabitan kali kedua atau kemudian, denda tidak kurang daripada RM2,000 dan tidak lebih daripada RM10,000 serta boleh juga dipenjarakan selama tempoh melebihi dua tahun telah dipinda kepada hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun dan denda tidak kurang daripada RM10,000 dan tidak lebih daripada RM30,000; dan dalam hal sabitan kali kedua atau kemudian, penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun dan denda tidak kurang daripada RM20,000 dan tidak lebih daripada RM50,000. Seseorang yang disabitkan di bawah seksyen ini akan hilang kelayakan daripada memegang atau mendapatkan satu lesen memandu selama tempoh tidak kurang dari dua tahun dari tarikh sabitan dan dalam hal sabitan kali kedua atau kemudian, akan hilang kelayakan selama tempoh tidak kurang daripada lima tahun dari tarikh sabitan. S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Fasal 9 dan fasal 10 adalah bertujuan meminda seksyen 45B berkaitan ujian nafas dan seksyen 45C berkaitan pengadaan spesimen bagi analisa. Peruntukan di bawah seksyen 45B dan seksyen 45C adalah berkaitan dengan kewajipan serta kesalahan seseorang yang tidak memberi spesimen nafas, spesimen darah atau air kencing untuk analisa kadar kandungan dadah dan alkohol apabila disyaki memandu di bawah pengaruh alkohol atau dadah akan dipinda. Bagi kedua-dua seksyen, hukuman penjara akan dijadikan sebagai mandatori bertujuan mendorong seseorang individu yang dalam siasatan memberi kerjasama kepada pihak berkuasa dan tidak menghalang penjawat awam daripada menjalankan tugasnya dengan memberi sampel bagi tujuan analisa. Pindaan juga bertujuan mengelakkan ia menjadi satu loophole yang akan diambil kesempatan oleh individu yang akan enggan memberi spesimen kerana hukumannya adalah lebih rendah berbanding jika disabitkan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 44, 45 atau 45A. Hukuman sedia ada bagi kedua-dua seksyen iaitu denda tidak kurang daripada RM1,000 dan tidak lebih daripada RM6,000 dan boleh juga dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi 12 bulan; dan dalam hal sabitan kali kedua atau kali kemudian, denda tidak kurang daripada RM2,000 dan tidak lebih daripada RM10,000 dan boleh juga dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun telah dipinda kepada hukuman penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua tahun dan denda tidak kurang daripada RM10,000 dan tidak lebih daripada RM30,000; dan dalam hal sabitan kali kedua atau kemudian, penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun dan denda tidak kurang daripada RM20,000 dan tidak lebih daripada RM50,000. Seseorang yang disabitkan di bawah seksyen ini akan hilang kelayakan daripada memegang atau mendapatkan suatu lesen memandu selama tempoh tidak kurang daripada dua tahun dari tarikh sabitan dan dalam hal sabitan kali kedua atau kemudian, akan hilang kelayakan selama tempoh tidak kurang daripada lima tahun dari tarikh sabitan. Fasal 11 bertujuan meminda seksyen 45G iaitu berkaitan tafsiran ke atas seksyen 44 dan 45B hingga 45F Akta 333 bertujuan menyeragamkan had kadaran alkohol di dalam darah (BAC) individu dengan kadar yang disyorkan oleh World Health Organization (WHO). Had kandungan alkohol yang dibenarkan di dalam Akta 333 akan dipinda seperti berikut- i (i) untuk had dalam nafas, dipinda daripada 34 mikrogram alkohol kepada 22 mikrogram alkohol dalam 100 mililiter nafas; ii (ii) untuk had dalam darah, dipinda daripada 80 miligram alkohol kepada 80 miligram alkohol dalam 100 mililiter darah; dan iii (iii) untuk had dalam air kencing, dipinda daripada 107 miligram alkohol kepada 67 miligram alkohol dalam 100 mililiter air kencing. …. Saya ingin buat sedikit pembetulan terhadap apa yang saya baca. Saya tadi kata 80 miligram. Dalam muka surat ini, untuk had dalam darah, S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dipinda daripada 80 miligram alkohol kepada 50 miligram alkohol dalam 100 mililiter darah. Saya dengan rendah diri memohon supaya pindaan- pindaan yang dicadangkan dapat diluluskan di Dewan yang mulia ini demi kesejahteraan dan kemakmuran hidup semua rakyat tanpa mengira perbezaan latar belakang atau anutan ideologi politik. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya mohon mencadangkan. Sekian, terima kasih. … Tuan Loke Siew Fook [Seremban]: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun untuk menyokong pindaan terhadap Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987. Saya hendak menyatakan bahawa saya menyokong semua fasal-fasal yang akan dipinda dalam rang undang-undang ini. Oleh kerana ini selari dengan semangat pindaan yang telah pun dicadangkan dan diluluskan oleh Jemaah Menteri Pakatan Harapan pada 29 Januari 2020 secara prinsipnya. Oleh kerana pada 29 Januari yang lepas, Mesyuarat Kabinet yang ketika itu saya merupakan Menteri Kementerian Pengangkutan, telah pun mencadangkan supaya secara prinsipnya kita menambah hukuman ke atas kesalahan pemanduan ataupun pemandu- pemandu mabuk. Oleh kerana kita hendak memberikan satu mesej yang kuat kepada pemandu-pemandu supaya sentiasa memandu dengan cermat tanpa melulu dan kalau sudah mengambil minuman alkohol, jangan sesekali memandu. We want to give a message of zero tolerance for drunk driving. Jadi, pemandu mesti berhati-hati. Mesti mengambil kira bahawa apabila berada dalam jalan raya, mereka ada tanggungjawab. Bukan sahaja kepada diri mereka tetapi kepada orang lain. Jadi, kepada pemandu-pemandu di luar, kita mesti sama-sama dalam Dewan Rakyat ini memberikan mesej kepada mereka. Kalau sudah minum, jangan memandu. Itu mesej yang kuat, yang perlu kita hantar. Pindaan terhadap rang undang-undang ini mengenakan hukuman penjara sehingga 20 tahun. Itu pun adalah sesuatu yang telah pun kita cadangkan masa kita berada dalam kerajaan dan kita menyokong pindaan ini pada hari ini. Begitu juga pindaan terhadap kandungan alkohol yang dibenarkan. Saya bersetuju dengan apa yang dikatakan oleh Yang Berhormat Menteri tadi bahawa kandungan alkohol kita sebelum ini agak liberal. Oleh kerana kandungan yang dibenarkan itu lebih banyak ataupun lebih tinggi daripada apa yang dibenarkan ataupun dicadangkan oleh pihak World Health Organization (WHO). Di mana kita lihat ada negara-negara lain yang jauh lebih ketat dari segi kandungan alkohol yang dibenarkan. Ada juga negara yang langsung tidak membenarkan setitik pun kalau ada minuman alkohol dalam badan, kalau dia kena, dia dikenakan hukuman. Jadi, itu adalah sesuatu yang saya amat menyokong bahawa kandungan alkohol itu diturunkan mengikut had yang telah pun dicadangkan oleh WHO. [Emphasis added] S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [36] Based on the Hansard above, it can be seen that the Parliament intends to make it an offence for a person who is driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and hence the amendment of the prescribed limit was initiated. [37] The prescribed limit of the alcohol on the breath of the accused, the blood of the accused or the urine of the accused would be crucial factors in determining whether the accused had committed an offence under Section 45A (1) of the RTA. [38] Thus, it is my finding that the parliament intends to create 3 distinct offences in Section 45A (1) of the RTA. THERE IS A DUPLICITY OF CHARGE PROFFERED AGAINST THE ACCUSED [39] Based on the above reasoning, it is my finding that the charge framed against the accused contains 2 offences i.e. driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres in his blood and driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres in his urine. [40] Hence, there is a duplicity of charges proffered against the accused as the charge framed against the accused contains 2 offences. WHETHER THE DUPLICITY OF CHARGE CAN BE CURED UNDER SECTION 422 OF THE CPC. [41] The next determination by this court is whether the duplicity of the charge can be cured under Section 422 of the CPC. Section 422 of the CPC is reproduced as follows: Subject to the provisions contained in this Chapter no finding, sentence or order passed or made by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on account of- S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (a) any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, sanction, consent, summons, warrant, charge, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceeding under this Code; (b) the want of any sanction; or (c) the improper admission or rejection of any evidence, unless such error, omission, irregularity, want, or improper admission or rejection of evidence has occasioned a failure of justice. [42] On this issue of whether the duplicity of the charge can be cured under Section 422 of the CPC, the Court of Appeal in the case of Sam Ke Ting lwn Pendakwa Raya [2023] 4 MLJ 650 succinctly enunciated as follows: [20] Untuk mengenepikan sabitan dan hukuman, perayu haruslah menunjukkan bahawa duplicity telah memberi dua kesan berikut: (a) perayu telah dikelirukan; dan (b) salah laksana keadilan (miscarriage of justice) telah diakibatkan kepada perayu. [43] Guided by the Court of Appeal case above, it is pertinent to note that the duplicity of the charge cannot be cured under Section 422 of the CPC if the accused is confused or prejudiced with the charge framed against him and the duplicity of the charge has caused a miscarriage of justice to the accused. Whether the accused was confused or prejudiced with the charge framed against him. [44] The issue that must be determined by this court is whether the accused was confused or prejudiced with the charge framed against him. [45] To analyse this issue, this court referred to the issue raised by the learned Defence Counsel on the very first day of the trial i.e., on 7 November 2022 and before the learned DPP had called the first prosecution witness. [46] The learned Defence Counsel had put on record his trouble with the framing of the charge specifically on the issue of defective charge on the ground that the charge had stated ‘alkohol dalam darah dan air kencing’ which is contrary to Section 45A (1) S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal of the RTA as the section stated that ‘alcohol in his body that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine’. [47] Since the issue was raised at the earliest opportunity, it is my finding that the confusion raised by the learned Defence Counsel is not an afterthought but a genuine concern. [48] Consequently, it is my finding that the accused was confused as to which offence in the charge he should reply to or defend himself against. [49] Furthermore, since the prosecution had every opportunity to amend the charge but failed to do so, it is my finding that the prosecution had no intention to amend the charge and as a consequence had caused the accused to be prejudiced in preparing his defence. [50] With fullest respect, it is also my finding that the prosecution in this case has committed a fatal error in stating the two offences together which error is confusing and prejudicial to the accused. Due to this, he had been unfairly burdened with disproving two separate ingredients of the offence. [51] It is also my view that failing to differentiate and separate the three distinct offences under the said section would lead to a failure to appreciate the essential elements or ingredients required to be proven by the prosecution. [52] By not distinguishing the three separate offences would also result in the accused not receiving proper notice regarding the charges against him and as a result, he would be unfairly burdened with preparing his defence. Whether there was a miscarriage of justice resulting from the duplicity of the charge framed against him. [53] For the duplicity of the charge to be considered illegal and not a mere irregularity, the court must determine whether there was a miscarriage of justice. [54] The Federal Court in the case of Ravindran Ramasamy v. PP [2015] 3 CLJ 421 had succinctly enunciated as follows: [16]"One trend in judicial opinion that is discernible in the cases cited is that the courts are more ready to impugn a charge as bad for duplicity where it contains more than one offence in the alternative" (Haji Abdul Ghani bin Ishak & Anor v. PP [1981] 1 LNS 96; [1981] 2 MLJ 230 per Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya), as S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HRH then was, delivering the judgment of the court). So it was held by Howes J in Jagar Singh, who pointedly disagreed with Sir Samuel Thomas CJ in Lee Chin Kee v. PP [1935] 1 LNS 29; [1935] FMSLR 33; [1935] MLJ 157 in which the learned Chief Justice held that a charge which offends s. 163 is not a mere irregularity but an illegality: In view of the express provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code section 163, that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge, I hold that the trial of the accused for the two distinct offences contemplated in section 46(i) of the Motor Vehicles Enactment (Cap. 168) in one charge was not a mere irregularity, but was an illegality, and for this reason the conviction must be quashed, and the fine repaid to the defendant. [17] Thomson CJ, delivering the judgment of the court in Cheong Sik Kwan v. PP [1959] 1 LNS 14; [1959] 1 MLJ 189, agreed that the contravention of s. 163 of the CPC is an illegality that cannot be cured, and that any conviction cannot be sustained: As in the case of Babulal v. Emperor AIR 1938 PC 130; 65 IA 158; 174 IC 1 PC it is not necessary to discuss here the precise scope of what was decided in the case of Subramania Ayyar v. King Emperor supra, but that case clearly did decide that where charges are tried together in contravention of any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code there is an illegality which cannot be cured and that any convictions had cannot be sustained. The provisions of the Code which are relevant here are contained in section 163, 164, 165 and 170 corresponding to sections 233, 234, 235 and 239 of the Indian Code. [55] Hence, based on the Federal Court case above, if the charge is in contravention of section 163 of the CPC, the charge is illegal and the charge cannot be cured by section 422 of the CPC as a charge must contain one offence and no more. [56] A similar view was espoused by the Court of Appeal in the case of Sam Ke Ting lwn Pendakwa Raya [2023] 4 MLJ 650 which enunciated as follows: [32] Untuk menyokong point salah laksana keadilan telah berlaku terhadap perayu, peguam perayu telah merujukkan kami kepada beberapa kes berikut. Dalam kes Yap Liow Swee v Public Prosecutor [1937] 1 MLJ 225, perayu disabitkan dengan pertuduhan memandu melulu atau cuai. Dalam menjawab isu sama ada duplicity dalam pertuduhan adalah semata-mata ketidakaturan (mere irregularity) atau kepenyalahan undang-undang (illegality), Terrell Ag CJ menyatakan di ms 226: S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal But in a case like the present, the prosecution do not set out to prove both recklessness and negligence but merely one or the other. Accordingly, the accused is embarrassed in his plea and if he is convicted he is left in doubt as to the offence of which he has been convicted. I have no doubt therefore that duplicity of his kind is illegality. Di ms 226 kes yang sama, Cussen J menyatakan: It is impossible to make a simple plea of ‘guilty’ to the charge in this case; and that shows clearly that the charge is bad — it is an illegal charge because it contains two distinct offences contrary to the provisions of s 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A charge must contain one offence and no more. Seterusnya, di ms 227 kes itu, Cussen J menyatakan: Finally, I do not consider that this is an irregularity curable under s 422 of the CPC. This is not such an error, omission or irregularity. It is a contravention of an express provision of the Code ie s 163 it is a matter of substance and not of form; it creates uncertainty and embarrassment; it is a charge to which it is impossible to make a simple pleas; it is an illegality. [33] Dalam kes Yap Liow Swee, sabitan terhadap perayu diketepikan kerana pertuduhan menyalahi undang-undang (illegal). [34] Dalam kes Wee Hui Hoo v Public Prosecutor [1987] 1 MLJ 498, perayu disabitkan dengan pertuduhan memandu melulu atau secara merbahaya. Perayu merayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman. Isu di hadapan mahkamah ialah sama ada duplicity dalam pertuduhan telah mengakibatkan kegagalan peradilan (failure of justice). Chong Siew Fai J memutuskan kegagalan peradilan telah berlaku kerana perayu disabitkan bukan untuk satu dari dua kesalahan alternatif, tetapi atas pertuduhan yang cacat. Oleh itu, sabitan diketepikan. [35] Isu duplicity dalam pertuduhan berlaku dalam kes Ravindran a/l Ramasamy v Public Prosecutor [2015] 6 MLJ 509. Dalam kes itu, perayu telah disabitkan dengan pertuduhan di bawah s 3A Akta Senjata Api (Penalti Lebih Berat) 1971 yang dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun Keseksaan. Perayu merayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman atas alasan duplicity dan salah laksana keadilan. Dalam mengenepikan sabitan terhadap perayu, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: Di bawah FIPA, seseorang pesalah tidak boleh menjadi kedua-dua pesalah utama dan rakan sejenayah pada masa yang sama. Pertuduhan menerangkan dua kesalahan, satu di bawah s 3 dan satu lagi di bawah s 3A. Ini bertentangan dengan s 163 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan cacat kerana kependuaan. Pertuduhan tidak diketahui di bawah undang-undang (unknown in law). Pertuduhan yang cacat tidak boleh diperbetulkan di bawah s 422 Kanun yang sama kerana S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal perayu telah dikelirukan dan berlaku kegagalan peradilan. Sabitan menjadi terbatal (nullity) dan diketepikan. … [37] Kami mendapati hakim pertama telah terkhilaf dari segi undang- undang apabila memutuskan kecacatan pertuduhan boleh diperbetulkan di bawah s 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah sedangkan pertuduhan itu mengandungi dua kesalahan, bertentangan dengan peruntukan s 163 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Seksyen 163 menghendaki satu pertuduhan mengandungi satu kesalahan sahaja. Kes-kes yang dirujuk sebelum ini telah mengesahkan bila s 163 tidak dipatuhi, kecacatan tidak boleh diperbetulkan di bawah s 422 KTJ. [57] Following on from the legal authorities above, it is well established that duplicity of charge on the ground that the charge contains more than one offence which contravenes section 163 of the CPC cannot be cured by section 422 of the CPC as the charge is illegal. [58] Thus, it is my finding that since the charge framed against the accused contains two distinct offences, ie driving a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres in his blood and driving of a motor vehicle with alcohol exceeding 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres in his urine, hence the charge framed against the accused is illegal and not merely irregularity as the charge contains more than one offence which contravenes section 163 of the CPC. [59] Consequently, the charge cannot be cured by section 422 of the CPC. [60] As a result, the accused should not be tried or convicted on an illegal charge. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED. [61] The subsequent issue that should be determined by this court is whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused. [62] Since the charge is defective due to duplicity of charge, this court could not determine whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal accused as the basis of the charge framed against the accused is illegal due to duplicity of charge. D) Conclusion [21] Having regard to all the foregoing reasons and after considering the notes of proceedings, notes of evidence, all the documents tendered in court and the written submissions filed by both parties, it is my finding that the charge is defective due to duplicity of charge. Hence, the prosecution has failed to made out a prima facie case against the accused. Consequently, the accused is acquitted and discharged from the charge framed against him. [22] The above were the reasons for my decision. However, I am humbly guided by the decision of the High Court. Dated: 18 December 2023 …………………………t.t.….…………………………. (QASIRATUL JANNAH USMANI BINTI OTHMAN) Magistrate Magistrate Court Cameron Highlands, Pahang Darul Makmur For the Prosecution- Puan Punitha a/p Sinnapan, Deputy Public Prosecutor. For the accused - Encik Selva Balan Sinna dan Puan Susan Joseph. S/N VNJKUP9MQUimoEAFoa7ypQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DI-83RS-25-08/2020

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pejabat Pengarah Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan] TERTUDUH Mat Udin Bin Berahim

Theft- Elements of the Offence under section 378 of the Penal Code- Taking out of possession of the complainant- whether the prosecution has prove the element- Prima Facie case.

18/12/2023

Tuan Tengku Shahrizam bin Tuan Lah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d046bb70-6f04-4b1f-8f3d-37fbed417d78&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI GUA MUSANG DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: DI-83RS-25-0/2020 PENDAKWA RAYA V MAT UDIN BIN BERAHIM ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] The accused in this case has been charged with the offence of stealing oil palm fruits belonging to Lembaga Kemajuan Kelantan Selatan (KESEDAR) pursuant to section 379 of the Penal Code. [2] The (amended) charge read as follows: “ Bahawa kamu pada 23/8/2020 jam lebih kurang 1625 hrs bertempat di Ladang Sawit dalam jajahan Gua Musang dalam Negeri Kelantan Darul Naim didapati dengan niat telah mencuri buah sawit milikan KESEDAR Paloh 1 anggaran sebanyak 2 Tan yang bernilai RM 1200. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 379 Kanun Keseksaan.” 18/12/2023 15:11:47 DI-83RS-25-08/2020 Kand. 18 S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Punishment [3] Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both and for a second and subsequent offence shall be punished with imprisonment and shall also be liable to a fine or whipping” [4] The prosecution had called on six witnesses to establish their case. The witnesses were as follows: NO NAMA PERANAN 1. Insp G. Gopinath A/L Govindan Arresting Officer 2. Arazaiamer Bin Zainuddin The complainant 3. Muhammad Danish Haikal Bin Suhaimi The Contractor 4. Che Zulkifli Bin Ab Rahman Former Manager for Agriculture Development for KESEDAR 5. Wan Mohd Zaed Bin Mamat Property Manager for KESEDAR 6. Insp. Alvin Hong Phing Yean Investigating Officer S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [5] During the prosecution’s case. There were a number of exhibits tendered. The exhibits were as follows: NO ITEMS P1 Charge Sheet P2 (A -B) 2 pieces of photographs showing the lorry driven by the accused P3 Search List P4 Police Report PALOH Report 1504/2020 P5 Police Report PALOH Report 1496/2020 P6 (A- D) 4 pieces of photographs showing the scene of the incident IDD7 Letter of Agreement on the Management of the Palm Oil Farm P8 Letter of Acceptance of the Tender. P9 Letter of Appointment as Contractor P10 Land Registration Title for Lot 3799 P11 Sketch Plan (of the area) P12 Exhibits handing- over Forms P13 Sketch Plan and Keys P14 Certificate under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 P15 CD IDD16 Sinar Harian Newspaper Article dated 28.1.2020 S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 IDD17 Utusan Malaysia Newspaper Article dated 1.9.2020 IDD18 Berita Harian newspaper Article dated 27.3.2020 IDD19 Suratan Hakmilik Sementara KESEDAR (Petak 15) IDD20 Police reports by the accused Facts of the case [6] On the 23.8.2020, at 4.25 in the evening while doing his rounds at Paloh 1 Fasa 1 Oil Palm Plantation, the complainant, Arazaiamer Bin Zainuddin (SP2) had encountered the accused driving a lorry loaded with oil palm fruits (hereinafter referred to as the fruits) [7] SP2 stopped the accused and told the latter that those fruits belonged to him and the accused had no right to harvest the fruits. He told the accused that he had the authority to harvest the fruit within that plantation area (Paloh 1 Fasa1) from KESEDAR. The accused did not budge and claim that he had harvested the fruits from his own area and had nothing to do with SP2’s area. [8] SP2 then called KESEDAR management to inform on the matter. Subsequently, a KESEDAR officer by the name of Mr. Nik Adam arrived at the scene and told the accused regarding the harvesting right of SP2 over the area. He told the accused S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 that KESEDAR had awarded the right to harvest that area to SM Maju Resources Sdn Bhd which had appointed SP2 to be the contractor to man the area. Again, the accused was adamant and insisted that he harvested the fruits from his area and not SP2’s. [9] SP2 then lodged a police report and subsequently, the accused was charged at the Gua Musang’s Magistrate Court with the offence of theft under section 379 of the Penal Code. The Law at the End of the prosecution’s case [10] Sec. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code in its fundamental form had stated; "(f) (i) When the case for the prosecution is concluded the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a, prima, facie case against the accused. (ii) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made ont a, prima, facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal". [11] The fundamentals of Section 173 (f) of the Criminal Procedure Code had rendered this Court obliged to determine the establishment of a prima facie case by the S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 prosecution. This Court had thus inquired into the definition of a prima facie case by indulging into the ratio decidendis and stare decisis of the Superior Courts. [12] The Federal Court in the recent case of Abdullah Bin Atan v Public Prosecutor and another Appeal [2020] 9 CLJ 151 had reiterated the portrayal of prima facie by stating the following; “As to what constitutes a prima facie 'case, the judgment of Vincent Ng J(as he then was) in PPv Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we respectfully endorse his Lordship's views, at pg. 225: "What then constitutes a 'prima, facie case'? 'Prima facie 'means on the face of it or at first glance.... perhaps the most appropriate definition of 'a prima facie case' could be found in the Oxford Companion of Law (p. 987), which has it as: "A case which is sufficient for an answer. While prima facie evidence is evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, but is not conclusive" (Emphasis added). It would follow that there should be credible evidence on each and every ingredient of the offence". S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [13] In acknowledging the principle mentioned in the case of Abdullah Bin Atan (supra) this Court had thus considered the existence of a sufficient case answerable by the accused. In deciding on the existence of a prima facie case silhouetted by sufficient prima facie evidence to be justified by the accused, this Court was equally obliged to consider the ingredients of the offence required to be efficaciously proven by the prosecution upon the conclusion of the prosecution's case. [14] The Federal Court in the case of Abdullah Bin Atan v Public Prosecutor had equally highlighted the obligation of the prosecution to prove each and every ingredients of the offence by stating: Section 180(4) of the CPC must be read in light of its context and legislative purpose. By so doing, the phrase "credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence" in section 180(4) means that the prosecution may prove each ingredient of the offence either: • (i) by adducing credible direct evidence of that ingredient; • (ii) by drawing inferences of fact, i.e. adducing credible circumstantial evidence, from which the ingredient can be inferred; or S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 • (iii) by invoking presumptions of law, i.e. adducing credible evidence of the relevant basic facts, to invoke a statutory presumption that the ingredient exists". [15] Preceding to the case of Abdullah Bin Atan , the Court of Appeal in the case of Looi Kow Chai & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2003] 1 CLJ 734 , had equally provided for detailed guidance on crucial considerations upon the conclusion of the prosecution's case. Justice Gopal Sri Ram in his tenure at the Court of Appeal had stated that: "It is therefore follows that there is only one exercise that a judge sitting alone under Sec. 180 of the CPC has to undertake at the close of the prosecution case. He must subject the prosecution evidence to maximum evaluation and 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". S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [16] In addition to the guidance of the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, the Federal Court in the case of Balachandran v Public Prosecutor [2005] 2 MLJ 316 had summarized on the factors to be considered by this Court upon the conclusion of the prosecution's case as it stated; "The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent ? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima, facie. As the accused can be convicted on the prima facie evidence it must have reached a standard which is capable of supporting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt" [17] Subsequent to the case of Balachandran, the Federal Court in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radzi Bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 further specified on the existence of inference concluded from the evidence of the prosecution. The court stated as such: S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 "For the guidance of the Courts below, we summarize as follows the steps that should be taken by a trial court at the close of the prosecution s case:- i) 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" [18] The recognized legal principles enshrined within the ratio decidendi and stare decisis of the superior Courts had thus obligated this Court to consider all the evidences in its totality by exercising maximum evaluation upon all evidences provided by the prosecution. [19] In conforming to recognized legal principles and determining the existence of a prima facie case by the prosecution, the consideration of crucial ingredients to be proven by the prosecution are conducted with maximum scrutinization upon all evidences provided by the prosecution. This court was equally obliged to S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 determine on the efficacy of the evidence provided by the prosecution in deciding for a conviction against the accused, even in silence of the accused. [20] This Grounds of Judgment will thus proceed on the findings of this Court upon the evidences of the prosecution's witnesses and the documentary evidences tendered during the prosecution's case. [21] This Court had indeed inquired into the essential ingredients of the offence that were required to be proven by the prosecution at the conclusion of the prosecution's case. This Court had considered all the evidences provided by the prosecution in its totality and had exercised maximum evaluation upon all the evidences provided during the prosecution's case. [22] Section 378 of the Penal Code reads: “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [23] In inquiring into the essential ingredients of the offence, this Court had referred to Ratanlal and & Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition and lays down five elements of theft: (i) Dishonest intention to take property; (ii) The property must be movable; (iii) The property should be taken out of the possession of another person; (iv) The property should be taken without the consent of that person; and (v) There must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it. [24] Having established the ingredients for the offence of theft under section 378 of the Penal Code, this Court will now look into each element and decides whether the prosecution has managed to prove those elements. 1- The property must be movable First and foremost, the first element to be proven here is the property or alleged stolen items must be a movable one. There is no issue in this case that the subject matter in question which is oil palm fruits which were found on the lorry driven by the accused were movable properties. S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 2. The property must be taken from the possession of another person. [25] Secondly, the prosecution must prove that the said property was taken away from the possession of KESEDAR. This element is basically the crux of this case since the accused’s case rest solely on the fact that the fruits were harvested from his own farm and not of SM Maju Jaya Resources Sdn Bhd (contractor appointed by KESEDAR) [26] According to SP2, when he was doing his round at the plantation that falls under his jurisdiction, he came across the accused who was driving a lorry with the contents of oil palm fruits at the back of the lorry. He stopped the accused and requested the accused to unload the said the contents and hand it over to him because he claimed that the said area fell within his jurisdiction and the accused had no business harvesting in the said area. [27] Here, the prosecution needs to prove that the accused harvested the fruits from the area that belonged to KESEDAR or the fruits itself were harvested from one of the trees within KESEDAR’s area. [28] From his testimony, SP2 did not see in person the theft committed by the accused nor any other witnesses called by the prosecution can confirm with certainty that S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 the Accused had in fact stole the fruits from any palm oil trees located within Paloh 1 Fasa A1 area which belongs to KESEDAR. [29] The fact that lorry was laden with the oil palm fruits cannot prove any fact that the accused harvested those from the trees located within the area owned by KESEDAR. [30] The prosecution has thus far failed to prove the impugned act of harvesting (stealing) the oil palm fruits from KESEDAR’s area. [31] However, this is not the end of the road for the prosecution as they still can prove the offence by proving that the said fruits were harvested from any of the trees within the area as per the charge. [32] To this, when asked by the defence on whether SP2 or SP6 (Investigating Officer) had conducted any DNA test to match the said fruits to any of the trees within that area, the answer is a negative one. They said that the fruits had to be disposed off quickly as those were perishable items. S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [33] Granted, the fruits need to be disposed of as soon as possible as it will degrade over time but the investigating team should have sent a portion of the fruits for some DNA testing to confirm that the fruits were harvested from the trees located within the area. This is the only way to prove that the accused had illegally harvested the fruits from trees located within KESEDAR’s plantation since none of the witnesses saw the commission of the act (theft) itself. Unfortunately, they have failed to do so and as such, has failed to prove that the fruits were harvested from the trees located within that area that belong to KESEDAR. [34] To conclude, it is clear here, that the prosecution has failed to prove this element when they failed to establish that the accused had stolen/ harvested the fruits from the area as stated in the charge nor they have proven that the said fruits were harvested from the plantation belonging to KESEDAR. [35] This element is very crucial to the prosecution’s case since it must be proven that the said oil palm fruits belonged to KESEDAR at the first place before it can be said that it was taken out of their possession. [36] Having concluded the above, this court does not feel the need to further elaborate the rest of the elements for this offence as the prosecution has failed to prove the S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 very first element of the offence which is the act of theft itself and whether the oil palm fruits found in the accused’s possession were indeed a stolen one. [37] It does not matter whether the complainant has stopped the accused with a lorry full of oil palm fruits within the vicinity of the plantation owned by KESEDAR, as it is still not profoundly sufficient to establish those were actually taken from the said area. FINDINGS [38] After careful consideration of the evidence before this court, it is crystal clear in this case that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had stolen the said oil palm oil from the possession of the complainant (KESEDAR) [39] In addition to that, the prosecution has also failed to at least match the said fruits from any trees from the area (Paloh 1, Fasa 1A) to establish possession of stolen items. S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 RULIING AT THE END OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE [40] After maximum evaluation of the evidence as required of me under section 173 (f) (iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as principles and the test at the end of the prosecution’s case, as laid down in plethora of cases, I held a prima facie case against the accused persons as per charge was not successfully proven and I ordered the accused to be acquitted and discharged accordingly at this juncture. (S.G.D) TENGKU SHAHRIZAM BIN TUAN LAH MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE COURT GUA MUSANG Dated: 16.10.2023 For the prosecution: Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Faiz Fitri Bin Mohamad (Attorney General Chambers) For the Accused: Mohd Ridzuan Bin Muhamad (Messrs. Mohd Fadzli & Co) S/N cLtG0ARvH0uPPTf77UF9eA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DI-83RS-26-09/2020

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pejabat Pengarah Pendakwaan Negeri Kelantan] TERTUDUH Moh Noor Bin Jusoh

Theft-Elements of Theft- Taking out of possession of the complainant- There must be dishonest intention to take out the property- Whether the prosecution has proved the element of mens rea.

18/12/2023

Tuan Tengku Shahrizam bin Tuan Lah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2eaed053-9408-4752-aed3-e6830006b06d&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI GUA MUSANG DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: DI-83RS-26-0/2020 PENDAKWA RAYA V MOH NOR BIN JUSOH ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] The accused in this case has been charged with the offence of stealing oil palm fruits belonging to Lembaga Kemajuan Kelantan Selatan (KESEDAR) pursuant to section 379 of the Penal Code. [2] The (amended) charge read as follows: “ Bahawa kamu pada 3/9/2020 jam lebih kurang 9.30 pagi bertempat di Ladang Sawit Fasa 1B Paloh 1 dalam jajahan Gua Musang dalam Negeri Kelantan Darul Naim didapati telah mencuri buah kelapa sawit lebih kurang 100kg kepunyaan KESEDAR yang diuruskan oleh penama Mohd Zaid Bin Mohamad KPT: 861117- 29-5581. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 379 Kanun Keseksaan.” 18/12/2023 15:15:38 DI-83RS-26-09/2020 Kand. 23 S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Punishment [3] Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both and for a second and subsequent offence shall be punished with imprisonment and shall also be liable to a fine or whipping” [4] The prosecution had called on seven witnesses to establish their case. The witnesses were as follows: NO NAMA PERANAN SP1 L/Kpk Ahmad Idris Bin Abu Police personnel who receives the report. SP2 Mohd Zaid Bin Mohamad The complainant SP3 Nik Mohd Adam Bin Nik Abdul Hamid KESEDAR officer SP4 SH Nurul Hasriatie Syed Hassan Contractor SP5 Wan Mohd Zaid Bin Mamat Property Manager for KESEDAR SP6 Che Zulkifli Bin Abdul Rahman Former Manager for Agriculture Development for KESEDAR S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 SP7 Insp. Kamarulzaman Bin Rafli Investigating Officer [5] During the prosecution’s case. There were a number of exhibits tendered. The exhibits were as follows: NO ITEMS P1 Charge Sheet P2 Police Report: Paloh 2 Report 1560/2020 P3 Appointment Letter by KESEDAR to SH Nurul Hasriatie P4 Police Report PALOH Report 1557/2020 P5 (A -C) 3 pieces of photographs showing scene of the incident. P6 (A- D) 4 pieces of photographs showing the alleged stolen items P7 Sickle Knife P8 Toyota Hilux bearing registration number AGU 6301 P9 Letter of offer by KESEDAR to SH Nurul Hasriatie P10 Land Registration Title for Lot 6301 IDD11 Confirmation letter over the status of the accused as settler D12 (A -D) Payment receipts by KESEDAR S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 IDD13 Suratan Hakmilik Sementara KESEDAR (Lot 26B) IDD14 Agreement IDD15 Sinar Harian Article dated 28.1.2020 IDD16 Utusan Malaysia dated 1.9.2020 P17 SSM search of SH Nurul Hasriatie IDD18 Invitation card to “Program Penerangan RKT KESEDAR” IDD19 Suratan Hakmilik Sementara KESEDAR (Lot 26A) P20 Search List P21 CD P22 Certificate under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 P23 Sketch Plan Facts of the case [6] On the 3.9.2020, at 9.40 am in the morning while doing his rounds at Paloh A Fasa 1B Oil Palm Plantation, the complainant, Mohd Zaid Bin Mohamad (SP2), who was a personnel appointed by a company SH Nurul Hasriatie Bt Syed Hassan (the contractor) to oversee the harvesting of oil palm fruits within the said area together with few other persons came across the accused who was within the area at that particular time. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [7] At the very outset, it is important for this Court to note that SH Nurul Hasriatie Bt Syed Hassan was a company awarded with the contract of harvesting oil palm fruits at Oil Palm Plantation (Fasa 1B) at RKT Kesedar Paloh 1 as shown in Exhibit P9. [8] SP2 told the Court that when he was doing his rounds, he saw the accused was harvesting the fruits from one of the trees in the area. SP2 told the accused that the trees were located within his jurisdiction and the accused had no right to harvest the fruits from those trees. He told the accused that he had the authority from KESEDAR to harvest the fruits from that area (Paloh A Fasa 1B). The accused did not budge and claim that the fruits were from the area belonged to him. [9] SP2 then lodged a police report and subsequently, the accused was charged at the Gua Musang’s Magistrate Court with the offence of theft under section 379 of the Penal Code. The Law at the End of the prosecution’s case [10] Sec. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code in its fundamental form had stated; S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 "(f) (i) When the case for the prosecution is concluded the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a, prima, facie case against the accused. (ii) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made ont a, prima, facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal". [11] The fundamentals of Section 173 (f) of the Criminal Procedure Code had rendered this Court obliged to determine the establishment of a prima facie case by the prosecution. This Court had thus inquired into the definition of a prima facie case by indulging into the ratio decidendis and stare decisis of the Superior Courts. [12] The Federal Court in the recent case of Abdullah Bin Atan v Public Prosecutor and another Appeal [2020] 9 CLJ 151 had reiterated the portrayal of prima facie by stating the following; “As to what constitutes a prima facie 'case, the judgment of Vincent Ng J(as he then was) in PPv Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209 is instructive. Although Ong Cheng Heong was decided prior to the amendment in 2006, we respectfully endorse his Lordship's views, at pg. 225: S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 "What then constitutes a 'prima, facie case'? 'Prima facie 'means on the face of it or at first glance.... perhaps the most appropriate definition of 'a prima facie case' could be found in the Oxford Companion of Law (p. 987), which has it as: "A case which is sufficient for an answer. While prima facie evidence is evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, but is not conclusive" (Emphasis added). It would follow that there should be credible evidence on each and every ingredient of the offence". [13] In acknowledging the principle mentioned in the case of Abdullah Bin Atan (supra) this Court had thus considered the existence of a sufficient case answerable by the accused. In deciding on the existence of a prima facie case silhouetted by sufficient prima facie evidence to be justified by the accused, this Court was equally obliged to consider the ingredients of the offence required to be efficaciously proven by the prosecution upon the conclusion of the prosecution's case. [14] The Federal Court in the case of Abdullah Bin Atan v Public Prosecutor had equally highlighted the obligation of the prosecution to prove each and every ingredients of the offence by stating: S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Section 180(4) of the CPC must be read in light of its context and legislative purpose. By so doing, the phrase "credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence" in section 180(4) ) means that the prosecution may prove each ingredient of the offence either: • (i) by adducing credible direct evidence of that ingredient; • (ii) by drawing inferences of fact, i.e. adducing credible circumstantial evidence, from which the ingredient can be inferred; or • (iii) by invoking presumptions of law, i.e. adducing credible evidence of the relevant basic facts, to invoke a statutory presumption that the ingredient exists". [15] Preceding to the case of Abdullah Bin Atan, the Court of Appeal in the case of Looi Kow Chai & Anor v Public Prosecutor [2003] 1 CLJ 734, had equally provided for detailed guidance on crucial considerations upon the conclusion of the prosecution's case. Justice Gopal Sri Ram in his tenure at the Court of Appeal had stated that: "It is therefore follows that there is only one exercise that a judge sitting alone under Sec. 180 of the CPC has to undertake at the close of the prosecution case. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 He must subject the prosecution evidence to maximum evaluation and 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". [16] In addition to the guidance of the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, the Federal Court in the case of Balachandran v Public Prosecutor [2005] 2 MLJ 316 had summarized on the factors to be considered by this Court upon the conclusion of the prosecution's case as it stated; "The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent ? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima, facie. As the accused can be convicted on the prima facie evidence it must have reached a standard which is capable of supporting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt" S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [17] Subsequent to the case of Balachandran, the Federal Court in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radzi Bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 further specified on the existence of inference concluded from the evidence of the prosecution. The court stated as such: "For the guidance of the Courts below, we summarize as follows the steps that should be taken by a trial court at the close of the prosecution s case:- i) 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" [18] The recognized legal principles enshrined within the ratio decidendi and stare decisis of the superior Courts had thus obligated this Court to consider all the evidences in its totality by exercising maximum evaluation upon all evidences provided by the prosecution. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [19] In conforming to recognized legal principles and determining the existence of a prima facie case by the prosecution, the consideration of crucial ingredients to be proven by the prosecution are conducted with maximum scrutinization upon all evidences provided by the prosecution. This court was equally obliged to determine on the efficacy of the evidence provided by the prosecution in deciding for a conviction against the accused, even in silence of the accused. [20] This Grounds of Judgment will thus proceed on the findings of this Court upon the evidences of the prosecution's witnesses and the documentary evidences tendered during the prosecution's case. [21] This Court had indeed inquired into the essential ingredients of the offence that were required to be proven by the prosecution at the conclusion of the prosecution's case. This Court had considered all the evidences provided by the prosecution in its totality and had exercised maximum evaluation upon all the evidences provided during the prosecution's case. [22] Section 378 of the Penal Code reads: S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. [23] In inquiring into the essential ingredients of the offence, this Court had referred to Ratanlal and & Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition and lays down five elements of theft: (i) Dishonest intention to take property; (ii) The property must be movable; (iii) The property should be taken out of the possession of another person; (iv) The property should be taken without the consent of that person; and (v) There must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it. [24] Having established the ingredients for the offence of theft under section 378 of the Penal Code, this Court will now look into each element and decides whether the prosecution has managed to prove those elements. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 1- The property must be movable With regard to the first element, there is no issue here as the subject matter in question is oil palm fruits which were found on the back of a Toyota Hilux which belonged to the accused. 2. The property must be taken from the possession of another person. Secondly, the prosecution here needs to prove that the said fruits were taken from the possession or land belonging to KESEDAR. [25] To prove ownership, the prosecution has called Wan Mohd Zaed Bin Mamat (SP5) who is the Manager for Property Division in KESEDAR [ Pengurus Hartanah KESEDAR] and SP5 had confirmed that the area which the accused was found to be harvesting the fruits belonged to KESEDAR. The said area in dispute was located within Lot 2660. SP5 had clearly pointed out the ownership of the said land through Exhibit P10 (Geran Tanah Hakmilik 56712) [26] Therefore, it is clear here that the prosecution has successfully proven that the fruits were harvested from the trees located within the area of Paloh 01 1B which is registered to KESEDAR. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 3. The Property must be taken without the consent of that person [27] Having established the fact that the items were taken from the possession or land belonging to KESEDAR, the prosecution must now prove that it was taken without the consent of KESEDAR. This is actually the main point of contention in this case. Though it is proven that the area belongs to KESEDAR, but what needs to be proven by the prosecution is whether the accused had wrongfully and in bad faith harvested the fruits without the consent of KESEDAR. [28] To deal with this element, the Court will then look into the aspect of what is the role or position of the accused in relation to the said area. [29] The accused throughout his defence, had consistently argued that he was given the right to harvest the said area by KESEDAR. [30] To begin with, the accused had showed to the Court that KESEDAR had in fact recognized him as one of the settlers for RKT Kesedar Paloh 1. This is shown by a document marked as IDD11 (not exhibit) and it was confirmed by SP3 when asked by the defence on that matter. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [31] Be that as it may, from IDD11, it does not prove anything as far as the claim by the accused is concerned. He may be one of the KESEDAR’s settlers for RKT Paloh 1, but the letter does not specify for which area/ lot that was given to him. [32] However, the defence had subsequently tendered Defence exhibits Exhibits D12 (A- D) which are receipts issued by KESEDAR over certain payments made by the accused to them over the area in question (Lot 16301) [33] When asked by the defence on those receipts, Encik Che Zulkifli Bin Ab Rahman (SP6) who is the former Manager for Agriculture Development Unit for KESEDAR explained to the Court that the word abbreviation “CT” in those receipts referred to “Cukai Tanah” [Land Premium] and “BK” as bayaran kembali. [34] While it is true that those receipts mean nothing as far as the ownership of the area is concerned, it does ring a bell as far as the role of the accused over the said land is concerned. It makes no sense that anyone would walk into a KESEDAR’s office and paid certain amount of Land Premium (Cukai Tanah) for a particular plot of land for no reason. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [35] What is more intriguing, the said payments were received by Nik Mohd Adam Bin Nik Abdul Hamid (SP3) [Operational Manager for Pejabat Operasi Paloh 1] who was one of the star witnesses by the prosecution. When crossed by the defence, SP3 in his testimony agreed that CT was a “Cukai Tanah” which was paid by the settler to KESEDAR to be paid to Land office. Cross- Examination Q: Saya cadangkan bayaran CT (Cukai Tanah) adalah dari peneroka kepada KESEDAR dan KESEDAR kepada Pejabat Tanah? A : Setuju. [36] When looked at the receipts, it is clear to this Court that those were dated 1st July 2019, 3rd February 2020 and 1st October 2020 respectively and this Court is mindful that the accused was said to have committed the offence on 3.9.2020. [37] If the accused did not have any right whatsoever over the said land, then why KESEDAR, in particular SP3 accepted the payments of Cukai Tanah from the accused on the 1.10.2020 which is barely a month after the alleged incident. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [38] According to SP3, the said Cukai Tanah which was paid by the accused to KESEDAR will be used to pay Land Office (Pejabat Tanah) in relation to the said land. [39] Moreover, the contractor appointed by KESEDAR, (which is SP4), to harvest the palm oil fruits from the area did not pay any land premium over the said land. [40] To further complicate the matter, when KESEDAR had awarded the contract to harvest the oil palm fruits from said area to one company by the name of SH Nurul Hasriatie bt Syed Hassan (Exhibit P9), it was for a period of two months from 1.8.2020 to 30.9.2020. But strangely enough, they (KESEDAR) had continuously accepting payment of Cukai Tanah over the said area from the accused on the 1.10.2020 as evident in Exhibit D12 (D). [41] To this court, this act by KESEDAR shows some kind of recognition from KESEDAR to the accused in relation to the land in question. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Title Document by KESEDAR (Suratan Hakmilik sementara KESEDAR) [42] On to the next point. The defence has been eagerly raising an issue in relation to documents called Suratan Hakmilik Sementara (Temporary Ownership Document) issued to the accused by KESEDAR throughout the entire prosecution’s case. What is this document is all about? This Court will now seek to discover the truth behind this document. [43] Firstly, the Court must clearly state the fact that these documents were not yet tendered as exhibit in Court. They were only marked as IDD 13 and IDD 19 respectively. [44] Why this Court concerns about these documents when it was not yet tendered before this Court? [45] These documents have been referred to few prosecution’s witnesses and they have admitted to the existence of these documents and those were issued by KESEDAR. The relevant document is IDD13 (pertaining to Lot 29B) S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [46] According to SP6, when crossed by the defence, he admitted that these documents (IDD 13 dan IDD19) were issued by KESEDAR to the accused. Cross- Examination Q: Berdasarkan Geran Biru ini, IDD19 dan IDD13 petak 26A dan 26B, setuju atau tidak ia dikeluarkan oleh KESEDAR? A : Setuju. Q: Ia diberikan kepada penama seperti yang tertera dalam dalam dokumen tersebut iaitu (petak 26A) dan (petak) 26B kepada Moh Nor? A: Setuju. [47] SP6 further testified that this temporary title was issued to the settler (the accused) to confirm that they will be issued 10 acres of land based on the instruction from the Member of Parliament of Gua Musang at that particular time. [48] This act of issuing titles (be that temporary) is an assurance or some kind of indication to the accused that he has a right over the said land and unless and until a written notification cancelling the said document, the accused can be said to S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 have legitimate expectation that he has a right to work/ harvest the fruits over the said land. [49] In the words of Leonard David Shim J when explaining the needs to establish the requirement of dishonest intention to prove the offence of theft in the case of Rusman Rusdam & Anor v PP [2022] 1 LNS 3180: In the case of Yap Sing Hock & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 CLJ Rep 356 where the requirement of dishonest intention is equivalent to the mens rea. "The word 'intention' or intentionally or any other similar expression (such as 'with intent') does refer to mens rea..." Therefore, to establish dishonest intention, the prosecution must prove the accused’s mens rea as per the case of Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Zikri Bin Baseri [2020] 5 LNS 4: "The classical elliptical Latin principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is of great significance that no crime is committed by a person unless such act was performed with a guilty state of mind. The state of mind could only be seen and construed based on state of affairs exist in a particular case. A mere act unaccompanied by a criminal intention is not a felony and both must be present simultaneously (see Haughton v. Smith [1975] AC 476, per Lord S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Hailsham of St. Marylebone L.C). It is only by way of express exclusion in the statute, such requirement for the presence of the mental element be modified by the Parliament, applicable for strict liability offences (see State of Maharashtra v. Mayor Hans George AIR [1965] SC 722). Hence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove such dishonest intention on the part of the accused person in executing the act." In establishing whether there is a dishonest intention of an accused, there must be a knowledge of the commission of crime as per the case of Public Prosecutor v Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abdul Razak [2020] 8 CLJ 319 where the court stated: “These several considerations provide convincing grounds for holding that the second leg of the test propounded in R v. Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 does not correctly represent the law and that directions based upon it ought no longer to be given. The test of dishonesty is as set out by Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v. Tan [1995] 2 AC 378 and by Lord Hof mann in Barlow Clowes International Ltd v. Eurotrust International Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 1476, para 10: see para 62 above. When dishonesty is in S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest." [50] As convoluted as it may seem, the main thing that the prosecution has to answer (with respect to this issue) is whether there was at any time KESEDAR had explicitly informed the accused on the prohibition to work/ harvest the fruits from the area and unfortunately, the answer is a negative one. Granted, as much as it is the right of KESEDAR to appoint any person to work on the said land, they cannot leave the accused who was issued a temporary title and had worked over the said land in limbo. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [51] It will be a wise move then, that there should be some closures or written notice that the accused had no right to work on the land anymore once they (KESEDAR) have decided to give it to someone else to work on it. There was no evidence adduced during prosecution’s case that KESEDAR at any time sent a letter, notices or notification to the accused that he no longer had any right over the said area. This, coupled with the fact that the accused paid Cukai tanah for the said land and the existence of temporary title document (Suratan Hakmilik Sementara KESEDAR) makes it very difficult for this Court to find fault over the accused’s act of harvesting oil palm fruits over the area when KESEDAR themselves did not informed the accused on the matter. [52] Hence, the Court finds no element of guilty mind of the accused when he harvested the oil palm fruits from the said area on the said day as per charge. FINDINGS [53] After careful consideration of the evidence before this court, it is crystal clear in this case that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had committed the offence of theft against KESEDAR. S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [54] They have failed to prove that the accused had dishonestly taken the possession of the said oil palm fruits from KESEDAR. In other words, the prosecution has failed to prove the element of mens rea in the said charge. RULIING AT THE END OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE [55] After maximum evaluation of the evidence as required of me under section 173(f)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as principles and the test at the end of the prosecution’s case, as laid down in plethora of cases, I held a prima facie case against the accused persons as per charge was not successfully proven and I ordered the accused to be acquitted and discharged accordingly at this juncture. (S.G.D) TENGKU SHAHRIZAM BIN TUAN LAH MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE COURT GUA MUSANG Dated: 16.10.2023 For the prosecution: Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Faiz Fitri Bin Mohamad (Attorney General Chambers) For the Accused: Mohd Ridzuan Bin Muhamad (Messrs. Mohd Fadzli & Co) S/N U9CuLgiUUkeu0aDAAawbQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-12AM-7-07/2023

PERAYU OOI SWEE KING RESPONDEN STANDARD CHARTERED SAADIQ BERHAD

Civil procedure – Writ of Summons – Statement of Claim – Service of undated Statement of Claim – Application to strike out Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim without liberty to file afresh - Whether discretion to allow liberty to file afresh was properly exercised - Whether Plaintiff is no longer dominus litis - Whether unilateral insertion of a date in an undated Statement of Claim is unlawful -Whether order pronounced by High Court is an ‘unless’ order - Whether such failure to comply with ‘unless’ order is intentional and contumelious – Whether impossible to comply with High Court order due to expiry of Writ - Whether part of High Court order is nullified ex vigore legis - Rules of Court 2012, Order 6 rr 7(2), Order 18 rr 19(1) – Limitation Act 1953, s6(1)(a).

18/12/2023

YA Tuan Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2401ecc4-2cc5-4bff-b243-a82f2e66b146&Inline=true

18/12/2023 17:29:37 WA-12AM-7-07/2023 Kand. 19 S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xOwBJMUs/0uyQ6gvLmaxRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—12Au—T—c7/2023 Kand. 19 IE/12/201] 1":29-27 IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR [COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL APPEAL No. wA»IzAuI.7.o7/102: EETWEEN ool swEE KING (NRIC Na. B20320-08-5175] APPELLANT AND STANDARD CHARTERED SAADIQ EERHAD [Company No. 20080102111!) RESPONDENT [In In: Manar ol me Sessions coun at Kunla Lumpur In In: Foaml Ta rilory of Ku II Lumpur. Mlllysia STANDARD CHARTERED SAADIQ EERHAD (Company No‘ 200a01022I1a) PLAINTIFF AND 1. PUREMAN VENTURE sDN am: (Cumplny Na.: 201201025471) 2. DOI swEE KING (NRIO No‘ 820320-aa-5115) DEFENDANTS sw xL)wBAMUsImyDfl§vunaxRfl um Sum ...m.. WW be HSQG M mm u. nIVflIruH|Y mm; dun-mm VI] .mm mm GRuunn§ QE ,IynsuIENT INTRODUCTION [:1 ms Inremunory appeal emanales [ram Ihe Sessmns Courl. wrrere me Iearned sessions Court Judge granted me Aopenenrs I 2"“ Defendam‘s <02‘; apphcamn In encl 2a, (hereby permmlng nre sinking am of the Respondent‘:/PIaInII1fs wm or Summons and Slalement oI Claim wiIh Ilberty In file atresrr Fur ease of reference the pames wIII oe addressed In this appeaI as may were IYI the lower court [2] Aowrdmg to D2. the crux onrre appellate demsunn hes III a smgmar quesuon wnemer gwen the :IrcumsIan::es oune one the Pnarnmrs sun shourd be msmmsed mm Ine provlsmn of Mbeny to me avresn DZ asserts mac, although me learned Sessions cauruudge was correct In disnnsslng me sum pursuam Io order 13 run. 1gm g Rulu of Court 2aI2 me is‘), me Plamufl should not be aflovded me lubeny to file afvesh In contrast, the FIamIIff contends that me Ieamed Sesswns com Judges demsmn to grant Ilbefly Io me alresh upon prunouncmg me order on msrmssal Is justmed Trns slabhshes a fundamental divergence In persneclive between me Dames involved regardrng me appropnateness ‘ srn rowerrdurrmraaerurexnd «nu. s.n.I nuvIhnrwIH r. u... w my r... unnIn.IIIy mm: dnuumrrl vu .nune WMI afvesh, wm depend on the lacls and cin:ums|ances «:4 each and every case ANALvsIs OF THE LAW may The wssue my my dekermmallon was whether me learned Sessions Guurl Judge nea exercmed ms den n correnly m granung lhe F\aInlIf1 hherly to me alresn upon smkmg cut 0! me Plaunmrs claxm In the cvcumscanoes 5:31 am abcve [211 Ccunoermng me appropriate approach for «me mm! m delemunmg whether to allow or memes an appeal agamst the Warner muffs exercise av discretion‘ we sImp\y need In look to the Supreme Court case or Vasurlav n ggul Raman T Damodamn Pv Raman&Anor. [1931] cu 34‘ [1991] CLJ (Rep) 101, [1951] 2 MLJ 150 where Abdoolcader J (as he men wu) delivering the mflgmanl anhe calm said at page 103-1u41cLJL page 151 (MLJ). 1b) Rawzw ol dlscrenon by .In Ippefllts ccun ‘Them e a calnnatlun of cases on me pmm ana n MU sumee to null and -evenp arewwmcn resvzIameweI\—seIl\ed gnmzlmes Anpppeuane cpun ean ruvxew quushum oldncvellon n n n a-any mun me: (he Judge was wmng pm mcve .. . praumplwon mm ne Judge his ngnlty axavusad nu anueuen And me nppenm. ceun must no: reverse me Judge‘: daemon on a mere “measuring 1251' 01 an . bare bnlincl as me mere me: at aucueuun «wolves mom lar moms and coy amevenm ovepmpn (Chuflet Osenlwn a. on V Jnhrulun [1n42]Ac 130, as -x n ‘ em xwwsluuslmyflégvuvuxfii «mu. Snr1|\nuuhnrwH\I>e med m my me pnmnm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! us per mm Wnqh|) we Privy Canned 7Iu\d in Rlmam u Cumarasamy A Anur M5411 ms 237419551 1 mu :2: ma! an appenme Coun wwll Hm mluflnve mm ma ducronnn uevulad by . mm com mm. at .. deany satisfied mat me aeuenen had new ewelcxsed an a wrong pr\n:vp\e Ind Ihuuh hue bun enraged m n uunlravy way 04 mu mere has Dean e mrxumage or wshue Memng m Evan: v Bamzm 119371 NR AC 473 me Huuse of Loni). Inwvw-9 me deaxmn at m. Enghm Cuun ul Appeax m Ward v James uses] 1 as 27: held In me same elleci m amnu .l|m9s[1i78] AC 227 :17 325 Fulgood melsumwewnuvn telev m me reumeus expressm alGauk1wIu J m Re Reed An debmr) {ua1a12 AH an 22. 25 an (ms Doml Am 9 257 me me; cl an Iopalme own m such mntev as one eye, m my wdgmnnl Wm.-ea «a (hose nemw nuv<ub\u wheve me lmuev noun has a ueuexm, ma wsln say we are nouusnfiad m mung am or vlrymg in alder Inmply 304: us: we mly mm wt mum have came we a dnlevsnl wncmsmn oursewes an mmrhv mmerm we can only mlenem w ennerwe can In me: (he cam helm: has lpphui a wvnng plmcvph‘ or ha: men min eecmmx mailers Ihal ave m Vlw mumm, a MS exauuea mmsls mm m mm be me uken mo awuum or mharwwa mt nu cowl pmpefly msuucnng nsew m me law, wuld have come In me eunchmun mu. m «m was nmv-d m - [12] The queemmchererme xswhalherlha neemea Sessions Court Judge had exercised his meueunn on a wrong pnno4p\e am should have been exerused m a oonvlrary way ovlhal there has been a miscamage euuemce when he decided to gram me Plemnw me liberty to me me when afresh [21] Havmg careful uonsuderamn 1 am not persuaded that the learned seamen: Courl Judge had veuen mm evrur On (he conlrary‘ I am cl me mew that on me ewdsnoe nedcre mm‘ me Ieemea sessmns Courl Judge was enmery msllfied m reaching the conduslcn lhanhe Premm enema he gwen lubeny to Me anest- sm xbwmuuslmyflégvuvuxfin «we. smuw ...m.mm .. H... e may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! [24] The ranonal aha cnlena gwerrrirrg the gram or refusal oi a sum; dIsmIssa\ wrrh Irbeny to me afrsh can be dlzrcemed mam me pnnuple eslablushsfl In the case oVFnx v Sm Nggagers & co [1898] 1 as 536 at 539 pvmmpls, whrch vound endorsement In the case o1 M Paguam Mllaysll A on v Ha]: Seglran s Krlshnan (supra). slates mar- - ailer me Dmesodmgl have mama a nanmn mg. ma purrrmr, whw nus nmuum ms adversary mu own, shau nor be sure In esuve by a ma. aoouha avowl me camul Ha rs man In be In longer be dommu: urruna msIormemgerosaywherharm amen shallhemscammued av nc| upon mm terms‘ [25] The High Court In Nanhyo sun. arm. v. Mlrglln Sdn. and A On. [1991] 2 CLJ Rep 664 expound: on the cucumstanoes under wmch urscormhualrarr may or may not be perrmsslble. pravrdrng viluame rnsrgms Inlo me Mmflar legal oonslderlhons penamlng to an order of msmusaal \h the current case Lrm Eeng choon J m1he sard case held as lnncws — 'The prrhapwes char can be extvaned from me fluramanwnad cases are Dmme Ccnrlwnuld no|campe\ . pnammro mhrrhrre hrs aamn bgixml a asverraahr n he doe: um mm m do so p-ovrm M: mjulhuu rs mused to ma aatahuam wusnce wmfld be uused rn me deleodam 4 my me msmnnnuanue was made Mm uheruor «mm m obtain a oo\|at.eml1dvanlaqe as m the cm mcasrarrrm v Brown 3. Ram Lair (2; III: dlxcormnuznee was not made um um ay «he plzmlfl but u was mm 71 may Ia obum ah ndvnnlngem Much he has N! ngnl ro remm smne he nu ceased lo he dnmmas has as his dalendam has a gammy quad defence - see Ovlrsus uhmh Fmance Ltd v hm Joo Chung (197111 ms 1015119 41) by me dwwunwluancn of lhe sum The dafundam womd be damned of an advantage men he ms aneqay game: m The hngaman . Isa emu Mntmawr a. vannezs V French Wow: me we ' [251 In the case oi Slml Anlvakul (M-mbum Guamm Eng: Pnluk Dlrl Sendirl nun Beberlpa Pelabur L-In Ylng TurulMn|ahuv Di Dal-m Plaflnrm Pelahuran Dafundln» Deienaan) v cnoo Klh Has 3. Ana: (supra) which was mined by D2. me (acts nre amerenn m that there were 2 sums The ms: sun was amamaucawy s1md< out due to nunvcompllance of a secumy for coss orderwwmn me prescnbed penod oinme The Courl struck am the second sun m hghl ov me lad that the same was mud to cwcumvenl me First sun The Plavmfl was no longer domlnus /ms m me Fvst sun rendering the mug of the Second surt as a clear abuse cl pmcess [271 The case at Ramuh 1/o Mumandy v Thu Doputy Minister of Homo Afilin Ml ylla & On (supra) vslled by D215 dnshngmshad In that the same penams lo a withdrawal apphed by the PISIMM where!!! there were10 amaswcs filed on uenarvame Respondents to oppose me wnt of habeas corpus Vn such wcumatances‘ the Flamllfl ceased to be dommus IIUS VI [he sunk whevexn to allow NM [0 refile alresn WOIAVG be pvejudlmal ID the Respondents sumuany, the case of Yarn Chm Ho v Thu Deputy Mlnmnr cl Hum! Aflllrl In On (supra) penams In another VI-ibezs :4 ‘ sm xbwmuuslmyflbgvuvuxfin mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII .mm Wm! cnrpus appllcatlorl whevelrl 11 iffidavlls weve med bednre lne Plemllll deerdee lo wllhdraw ln eucrr case‘ were is a clear abuse el process wnereln me Court ls justflied ln exerelslng lle discreucrl ln not grenllng llberly re me elresh upon me rnener belng wlthdrawrl [:3] In our case rne Plerncllv has nor ceased to he the dornrnenl pany (domlnus W5) ln me acllon based on lne guaranlee glven by D2 D2 nee ndl ablalned any adyenlege or belng denred 01 any good derenee ln me Sm! as he remalrlsa guaranlorto the facllllles gremed rd D1 Tne sult nee been challenged an reennreal polrll (nol an ments) er me In II elege whevelrl me cnellenge was merely on me lssue ol nemnsemon or a dare wnmn me busy er me sleremenl ul Clalm, wlnlel the Wm being pmperly signed dared and sealed [291 on the lssue of e peremptory order belrlg ellegealy dlsobeyed, D2 relled on me see: at on a. on V Allen A Gledlrill (supra) In that case me Plelmlil lalled lo me me amended delence wheveln there ls a specmc provlslen or rnbulll sanclmn m the rules that amendment would have ne elleclr s nul filed wlllun 14 days or dmarnlng me order l e e peremptoly or unless order D2 vurrner relles on are case oi Syofl omn- bin Syed Mohamed v Perbmenan Nasional and (sl1pra)whereln lne Cowl lound that mere was an lnlerruanel -nd corllumellaus dedaull on me 15 ‘ em xDwBlMUs/lllyfligvuvuxfii «we. Smnl nuvlhnrwm e. d... m my r... nflmnnllly mm: dnuuvlnnl y.. nFluNG Wm! Plamnws pan m not oampiymg wrlh me drscdvery order wmcn was neld «o be a paremplury order. [an] In arderro analyse the alleged breach vflha express drrecudn dame com, I reproduce me content o1 me said Hrgn court order dated 20 03 2023 nerem ‘FENGHAKIMAN GKANDUNGAN H «mum um Isiah drrerapxan Immk nendangaran pad: nan rnr daranr kahadvan Lum Knk Kmng (Gregory Sebaslhn Pemm Dalam rurnar oersarnanyar Degulm nagr pwhak Fevayu dan mu Amman bun Zzlnm (Am: Ameevl m Mom Aznam. Pemm Dalam Kamnr bemaminya) peguam Ingl pmak Rnpnnden DAN sErEu\H MEMBACA Ranked- Rekm Rayuan den hmahan nemrurs yang kelemuanya dnarnxan dr sum um swarm msnusucan nujnhnn Dvhnx-Dmnk mu ADALAH nwsmuranmn nanm V r Rlyuan wersyu mun dnbennrknn 2 Flnnlah heltznkh we 12 2:122 dun Mahkamah sesyen Idihh dmereprm ;r Penghlklmln lwqkal Kehadmn berunkh Joe2u2\ remadrp Periyu / nerendan Kedua edanan dlkelaplkan 4 Rnpendlnl Phlnm hnndnklzh rn.nyunpuun nmnh Writ dxn P-rnyauan Yunlman yam; nnkan (berhrlkh d.n unn-nun knpndu myu mmnd... man. an In mean mun dnrinldt brvikh plnuhnklnun an 5 Puayu / Delendan Kedua handaidall memasukkan kehldlrin din rnenrm In mnwun rnengrm gm: rm. ylnp dnemapkan oteh Kaeflah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 e Tmalkln W mxsn dlmmhlflkan samum x. Mlhkamlh Seayen flan 7 nada Deflnmh Itmsdlp kos Bsnankrv Dadazn Mac znzs ' [:11 To my rnrnd. paragrapn 4 0! me said order rs nm a peremptory per se ms is because rr does not Dvwlde (or an ordered wnsequanw in the even! Ma rauure In dd an am There rs Also nothing rn our rules lo consrrue 15 sm xwwmuuslmyfliqvuuxfifi “Nana snrm nmhnrwm .. U... m may r... nflmnnflly -mm: dnuamnl VI nF\uNa v-max any mbuln sanchnn rd quulify me same ID be peremplury aa oppnie ID me me In the case 0! Llm on a. on v A an A Gledrml (supra) II was merery an order In reserve the properiy dared, signed and sealed Wm and Statement at clarrrr wrrrun n epecrnc rrmeurre m hghl M me aemng asrde cl me deveun rudgnrenr [121 one palm that was nm rareed uy errner puny rs rne legs! erred cl paragvaph 4 more sand order rn hgm dune s|alus dune wrrr d1 Summons It Is IO be nored me: upon me Hugh Courl urarroundrng me order afsemng aside ei me deVau\I wdgmenl and drrearng the prepeny dated cause papers ll) be served wllhm 14 days, me wnr M Summons dared so 04.2021 nee arready exprred This occurred on 29102021 Ie 5 nronms aner Ils rssuanee on so o4 2u21 ms would rendar paregrepn 4 capame of bemg set asme ex debllo justirlae Such dlredlcn rs euronrerrcally word and can berreared as sucn wrrndur more add Irsrands as nuumed ax wgola /agrs, re by operatvon ol raw and be bgnored srmuhcrrer The clanly onrre pnnuple rr. conveyed by e s1alemen( of Lord Dennmg rn MaI:Foy v urrrred Mrigg Co. Lrd (19€1)AII ER 1169 af11721 Pcznar - ‘Nan 1:1 rs ma, then r rs m law n nulmy 1| us not only had hm mmubly Ind Yhuv rs up need You an drd-r 471 mu own ro ser n am. n I: aurmrrarrcarry nun and verd wnhnul more side. lhwqh 7: rs sarnerrnres eonvenrenr re hlvn rna cowl dacmu A as be so And wavy pvuuedlng wmch rs rounded an n than and rnduramy had ‘ 17 ‘ em xwwsluuslflllyflivgvuvuxfii “Nana a.r.r mmhnrwm .. med e may r... mruurr mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum WM [:3] on me otnei hind based on D2 s soiiciiers line at aigument, the High Couri dated 20 D3 2023 implied for the Plaintifi lo renew the Wnt amend the statement at ciaim and have it served witnin trie flme limit at 14 days we on 0! beiare 0304 2023 As tna Pfiintifl did not do so‘ and served D2 the expired Writ Iogeihev with the Statement 07 Claim which was unilaterally dated. it was arguablyiustified tor DZ ta have it struck out without iibertytu file airesh To my mind no one nun be expecied in do the impossible At the stage the dllecllari was pronounced by my pvedecessor in amce, «was in raw Impossible «oi tne F\aintM"s counsei Io oamply me subsequent extension obtained by the Plzlrltflari 02 06 2023 due to D23 delay in preparing the order‘ which Fesmled in the High CDWYS variation OHHE timeiine to seive tne Wrll oi Summons and statement at Claim 14 days enter tn: said order was Saaledt did not cure the nuimy M pavagraph 4 Mine order [34] Itook me libeny in eximinmg tne minutes and cause-papers filed in Appeai No WA—12AM~l 1-12/2022‘ wnerein it is cieartnetine issue oi me win of Summons being expired was not brought to me attention 0Htie piesidmg Judge i behave (hut even Nltiis concern had been vlised with the pvesiding Judge. in wauld siiu be iegauy impossime ti: renew the validity oi the wnt ui summons Tnis is so as oggi 5 am. 112 oitne Rglg; mandates tneiunewm cisuminons an only be extended twice, and each it ‘ sm teweiuuunuyeaeummu «mu. s.n.i mmhnrwiii be .i.... M my i... nnmruflly mi. dnuumnt Vfl nFiuNfl Wm! extensran must net exceed stx rnunms Ergo. tne maxtmum duralrort tne vendtty or me WrI| ol summons coma have been extended to ts only up to 29 11: 2022 Furtner, as pertne case M Battershy grtd others v. Anglo- Arnencen Cgmmnx Ltd. and otn!5[1944] 2 AH ER :57. referenced by tne Federal court tn the case of Duli Vang Amt Mull: Tunku Ihralllm Ismail lbni Sulun lskandar AI-He‘ v. Daggk Qjghin Hentuh Mohd Noor & Anggggr Annal [2009] 4 cu 329. Lord Goddard (at p 359 F) held as renews mne Wm had oeased he be In Iome tnepnettton V3018 tame as nrtned um: barn med- [:5] Gwen the mandatory prerequtsttes oulhned Ifl ord s Rull 112A ol the Rules, I do not think rt ts posstme lur tne expired Wm 10 be renewed In vtewtnereer, I do not trunk tt rs rerr for D210 mace tne blame on me Ptetnttn lcr the preeeduret consequences reteted lo tne tmposstburty to camply wttn tnts portton Mlhe order [:5] Nevertheless tr I am wrong on me lac! tnat paragraph 4 cl me sad order not being peremptory and mt hemg null and Vold. cases have snawn that desprte tne extstenoe of a peremptory order the Own sttu have the duty lo look mm an the circumstances of me case‘ tnuudtng whemer the default was vnIenIvona\ end oenmmeltcus, beiare pmeeedtng to peneltse tne parly tn deteutt The can be seen In tne case at Md Amin 19 ‘ srn xnwsluusllllyfiiqvuvuxfifi «mt. s.r.t mmhnrwm .. tr... m my t... nflmneflly MW: dnuumnl VII erturm Wm! M V mar v. ci ill :1 [zum] 3 CLJ as, whevem the Court M Appeal held as loflows ~ [11 Amlough a paws zchan nr mumercwauu may be struck nu! my non- camwllnua mm 1 pmmpwy mama». own, such In :udeI(ilI1|(Ing um) mu no: he made was (here has been a mfluly of lalmves m corvluly mm allter mam 04 cuun A peremmmv order turflau omen .s in «me! M me \as| mum sum in order wm na| mm on "ends of ,u:uw n n msuns m . mwscamaga Lmusuce The gudge mm: but ‘me an (M cwcumslancas at m. cm, mmamg wherthev rm dnlwll wu mhemwmal and oanmmelmus hefuvs praueeamg lo penahse Ihe panym delluh In an my [:7] In Ihe Hvgh Caurfs case ulfiolvu &. amth-rs sgn gm 1 wgng Foh Ling a. on (No 2 (200115 cu 476‘ Abam Mallk Jshak J (as he men was) had qumed excerpts frnm the gudgmenl of Ward L J In Hm: lrvfonnafiog gymmg gm cov-mg cig Q“; [1997] 1 WLR 166$ (-1 page 1514) and su Nicholas Emwne—wm<unsun vc m In Jolul Tea Haldlngs ua mom [1992] 1 WLR 1195 (at page 1203) where su Nicholas Browna»WHkm3an menlmned as Mlows an my judgment‘ m can: m wmw me mun mm m dame mat are me consequevme: M . mum to comply mm in Umless‘ outta me velevam quasuon ‘s wttelhel such mum u In!enh::na\ am numumelmus The wun should nnl be uum xo find excuses For ma. hum‘ Imw nbedremxlo ovders ullne mm .s |h¢ vaumamn on wmch ns aumomy rs «mmm Bun n . any can claim lumen :45 Ihal (Mm vols no mlenman m wgnora nr Hunt the area! and mm nu came m nbey was due to axuamus cvcmlulancu‘ such him: In my .s um ll.) be «mm as uuntumehnus and Itluefore does no: drsenlme nu Ymgamtu ngmwmcn he would nlherwwse um erquyad “ Mus‘ m 015 case I mus! eumma the reason an/an mm. p\lm\WHur nreanmng me unless nniur “ [35] Exammlng me cwcumstanoes‘ the learned sesmns coun Judie’; declsmn w smke out me Plamms sun ws wsmea due m the expvafian oi 20 sm xbwmuuslmydégvuvuxfin «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! olgranlrng lne Plainnmne opponunrly to rnmale a lresn amt beaed an lhs clrcumstanoes al hand. [3] on zu lo 2023 «his court held that lalnng rnlo conslderallon me maln undevlylng pallcles and Dame prrncrples ol lrre Rules olccun zmz cne learned 59SSlOH$ Ccun Judge ls correct In the exercise ol ms dlscrellon ln grznllrlg me Plarnlrrr llbeny In file alresn upon the daemon la alsrnlss on Ina! basls lnrs Court dlsmlssed me D2‘s appeal and afflrmed the Sesslorls Court declslon dated 12 07 2023‘ wnn no order as lo costs [4] On 01 H 2023 D2 filed an appeal agalnsl lrns Courfs declslan lenel 1) BACKGROUND [5] Tne Flrsl Delandarn 1“Dl“) was me cuslomev M zne Plarnlrll znnx. wrra had npplled lar flnarlcmg Based on a Letter dated 23 as 2013, me Plarmnv granted DI wllh a Commodily Murabahah lacllny arnourmnq la RM5oo.oao.oa under account No 60070226 (me sald Facility) Pureuarrl lo a Personal Guaranlee also 23 09 2015 (“Guavarl(ee"), D2 rras agreed to guarantee all oulsranmrrg payments plme sam Fa cy ‘ em xDwBlMUi/lllynigvuvuxfii “Nair Smnl mmhnrwlll .. HIGH w my r... mm-y mm: mm. VII .nune Wm! me wrlc cf Summons However, n IS eviuenl lnel the Flalnlilvs overslgm ln mus mane: does nel amount lo a serlous neglea cl amlssion. Trus dlsllnulon ls cmclal because‘ despne the procedural mlsslep thaa led to the sulrs smlung eul, W is reasonable Io argue lnal lha Plaunlllv should not be barred lronl llllng alresn [39] I new addlass me laaue of the alleged lllagalny In lna Plalnlnrs conduct wnlcn IS argued by D2 to be anmnel facmr In denying me Plalnlllls ngnno lefile alresn Considerable onclasnl has been dlleded inwards lne allegallon ol lanlpenng wun mun documenle, a clalm verlemerllly asaened by D2 as being lllegal Generally‘ lne lnlentlurlal Insemorl af an Incorrect dale or lalslncauon cl any Inlarmatlon wllnln a legal dacumen! ls aeenlea lampanng wllh cnun docurrlems‘ cunslllulmg a crlmlnal ullense Huwever a ulsuncnen arlses when me uale ls lnadverlenlly lell blank and subsequently filled ln Wllh accurate lnlonnallon Anlmugn procedulally lnearrect, such an actlun typlcally does not amount to a cnmmal ollence [401 Funnermme, drawlng malgms (ram me pveeedenl set ln me case el Owners 0! me 5 E or Vessel sasacoln I v Bank Pgmbangunan Mglggla and [2015]-1 MLJ 841, the slams ollhe undated stalelnenl or Claim ls legally chamrzlellzed as man el a drafl Tne document only n ‘ am xnwsluuslflnlyflfigvunaxfii “Nair Smnl nuvlhnrwlll .. med M my me nflnlnnllly sun. m.l.n Vfl nFluNG ml aeauilee lull legal exlslenoe and slgnlncanee when both slanea and dated ln llgrll ol tna pelspecnve, the Plalnlllre unllatelal acl al lnsanlng tne aanect date ln tne undated statement of clam. IS not mnerently unlawful lnsleae, ll can be canstnlea as an slim to ennanoe lne statalnenl ol claim H1 Ils alert lonn lmporlanlly, true actlnn does nol carry tna same level of culpatalllty as altenng or addmg In tne content at an exlsllng and valid caun clocument The dlstlnction urldersmves tne nuanced nature al the allegea tanlpenng, corlsldevlng both tne procedural lnegulamy and me intent benlnu the Plalmlfrs calrecwe actlon [411 Ithelelue agree wltn asserllon made by me aalleltals enne Plalnlnl ln tnal lne Courts‘ dlsuelmn to dlsccmmue cl dlsmlss legal prooeedlnge. wllh or wltnoul tne lltzeny to lnltlate Vreih pmceedlrlgs‘ ls eentlngenl upon me unlque lads and clrcumstannes lnrlelenl ln each case. True lnmllee that true uelemnnallan olwnetner to allow me tllseentlnuatlon or fllsmlssal at an aetlon and under what mnaltlena I5 lnnerenlly subjecllvel wltn me Ccuns cavelully conslderlng me speolfic eetalls enu nuances :71 (he case at nana The argument underscores the lnlpanance al a case—by—case assessment, alnpneel ng lnal the exarclse ouualclal aleelellun ln sucn matters ls not governed by nglu lures but letller shaped by tne lneluluuel context and lntncacles aleacn legal scenann. ‘ am xDwB1MUsIWyQ5§vuvl:><Wi «nu. s.n.l nuvlhnrwm be UIQG .a my l... nflnlnnflly ml. dnuuvlml Vfl mane Wm! DECISION [42] Upon oonswdenng the tens ov me case and me mumsxanoes surroundmg the PISIMVWS non-compliance wI|h the High Court‘: dvrechve regavdmg (he service 0! Wm of Summons and Statement 07 C\a\m, I find that there vs no mam m D2‘s apnea! hevem [43] The learned sessmn coun Judge‘s deasxon to axerclse ms dlscraflon to gram nbeny to me afresh 15 weH (ounces: and shown not be dvsturbed D2‘; appeal m and 1 us marsime dvsrnlssad wflh nu urder as to costs The weamea ssssxans Cowl Judge‘: decision da|ed 12 07 202315 therefore affvrmed L4_ (VUSRIN FAIDZ BIN vusorr) Judicial Commissioner Hugh court 0! Mmaya Kuala Lumpur Dated 14" December2D23 13 ‘ sm xbwmuuslmyflbgvuvuxfin «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Furlhe Appellam I Lum Kuk Klong Second Delendant (Jeslyn Ling wnn hum) Messrs Lum Kok mung 5 co 1 K-66. Solans Mon!’ Krara Na 2, Jalan solans swan Kuam Lumpur For the Respondenu Fadll Azuvmn hm Zamon Flamlm (Tay Venng Hun mm mm) Messrs Anfin & Partners‘ E41416, Menra suEZcAP—2, KL Gateway, No 2, man Kennchl‘ Gerbang Kerincm Lesban‘ 59200 Kuaka Lumpur CASE REFERENC - 1 Ramush s/o Mumandy v The Deputy Mvmslar at Home Aflalrs Malaysia 8. Drs [2012] MLJU 154 2 Tan Chew Ho v The Deputy Mlnlsterall-(am: Affairs 5 Ors[2U12} 9 MLJ 712 3 sum: Assavakul (Mcmbawl Gunman Bag: Plhak Dm Send: Dan Eeberupe Psxaour Lam Vang Turul Melobur Dv Dmam Prauorm Pelaburan Dafendan Delendan) v Chou Kan Ha: & Ancr [2023] MLJU 1455 Lrm on 3. Dr: V Allen a sweamu [mm] :4 MLJ 431 Syad Omar hm Syad Mohamed v Perbadanan Nasnanal Ehd {2u13]1MLJ4s1 5 Jznuv v Morns[19€1]3 All ER 730 7 Maflls Peguam Mahysla & om RaJa Segaran s Knshnan [2002] 3 MLJ am 3 Hunhya Sdn Bhd v Marplan Sdn Ehd &Ol'S [1991] 2 cu Rep sea 14 ‘ sm xbwmuuslmydégvuvuxfin «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 9 Andrew Lee Svew Ling v United overseas Bank (Ma1ays1a) Berhad [2013] 1 cu 24 10 Vasudevan vazhappuui Raman v T Damoaaran P v Raman 5. Mar [19E1]CLJ B4 [1951] CLJ (Rep) 101. [1951] 2 ML! 150 11 Fox v 5161 Newspapers 5 cu[1E913]1 05 636 12 MacFny v Urmed Nnca Co Ltd (1961) A11 ER 1169 13 Banersby and Others v Ang1o—Amencan on Company Ltd. and Others [1944] 2 All ER 357 14 Duh Vang Amal Muha Tunku lb]-amm 1sma11 Ibm sunan lskandav Al-Ha] v Daluk capxain Hamzah Mohd Near & Another Appem R005] 4 CLJ 329 15 Md Amm Md Yusof & Anar v CKryv1IlI Sdn EM [2004] 3 01.1 81: 15 Fohn 5 Emmeus Sun and v Wang Fuh Lmg 5. Or: (Na 2) [2001] 5 CLJ 475 17 Hylec 1n1am-a11on Systems Ltd Cm/entry my councn [1997] 1 WLR165€ 1a In re Jok:1 Tea Holdings Lm1Na1e)[1ss2] 1 WLR 1196 19 Owners ufthe sum or Vessel Szsawm rv Bank Pembangunan Ma1ays1a End [2015] 4 MLJ B41 LEGISLAYIDN REFERENCE: 1 Order 6 Me 712; 01019 Ruin o1 com 2012 2 Order 5 Rule 7(2A) ullha Rules 171 com 2012 3 Drder1B Rure1911)oi1he Rules oi Court 2012 4 s 5(1)(a) ov me Llmnalmn Act 1953 1; sm xnwsluuslmyflbgvuvuxfin 1.. s.n.1...11.m111... 1.... 1: may 1... 111111.11-1 -mm: dnuumnl Vfl .m1a M1 [6] Based an me «am that D1 subsequermy vanad to sellle the caumem, me sax: Facrmy was lernunaled we a Nance av Demand dated 05 D4 2021 (‘Termmaflon Nome‘) As at 23.04 2021, the sum of RM524‘433 95 was oulallndmg and payable by me Defendants [1] The Pmvntwffmeveafler mmmencea the sum agamsl me Defendants at me Sessions Court In sun Nu WA-352M-121-04/2021 by mg a wnu av Summons on 30.4 2021 [51 A Judgment In uelsuu at appearance was emersa agamsl D1 a D2 on so me zuzw M appncanian by D210 set aswde «he saw 1-mgmsm was drsamwed by me sessmns cam on 15122022 Upon D2's appeav (Appeax No wA-12AM-1M2r2o22). the High Court no an 20 as 2023 set aswde me said nevaun Judgment on the grounds that me Statement ov Clavm Ihal was sewed on D2 was undated vwcmn me same omen me Hugh Cowl dnecled me P\amml |o re~serve me my seared, mgnea and dated wmav summons and szazememov C\aim on B2 w\m|n14 aays «mm 20 03 2023 m The Plammrs snnumrs unflatevafly msenea a data m the said Statement of mama and served mogemerwnh me wm vxa registered post on 1: M 2023 Thus mggma D2‘: unkvng nu! ipphuatvon as me Wm 01 . ‘ sm xnwmuuslmyflégvuvuxfin «mm. smm ...m.mm s. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! summons had already exprred, and the fan that me Plarmnl lulled la amend av refile ma sralemenr or claim rellecxrng rne acrual dale ol Issue [In] Based on me slnklng out applrcarrorr dated as 05 2023. D2 prayed lot the l=larrmll's enrrre clarm lo be drsmrssed wlthuul llbeny to me alresrr on 12 D7 2023, me sessions ceurv. m lts drsoernrnenl allawed D2’: appllcallcn lor slrlklng am However‘ rl extended the pnvrlega ol lrling afresh to me Plamlrw D2, dlssallsfiefl wrln (he Ssslons Cmm‘s ueclslon on the aspen perlalnlng to grarmng llbeny lo file alresn lo lrre Plarmrfl, lodged an appeal It ls noteworthy that desprls having Ihelr clalm struck eul. me l=larmm has nm pursued an appeal Consequently. the sole mamer ior conslderallon befhre lhls Court perlalns to ma appmprlaterless ol glanllng llbeny la me Plarmmor fillrlg alreerr COUNSEUS CDNTENTIONS [H] D2‘; learned counsel, Ml Lum Kok Klong conlends that almougrr the learned sesarans court Judge is oarrecl In me smklrlg oul M me aclrarr me Plarnrrll should be precluded lrdrn fillng elreelr due in than acl of non—colrlpllanl:e at me Hlgh courrs order dated 20 us 2023 made pursuenl rd D2‘s appeal In sel aslda the delault ludgmenl ‘ am xnwsluuslfluyflégvuvuxfifi “Nana smel ...m.mrrr .. med m my r... mrmrrry mm: mm. Vfl erlum war [12] D2 argues mal subsequent la me Hrgn caurvs declslon lo set nlde me aalaull ludgment Ihe Flalnllff rrelmer amended the une.-llea smernenl al clarm nor had lr refiled Hawever. ln marked aanlrasc arm defiance of lne Hlgh Courfs dlrecllve me Plalnlm opted Ia serve an explved wrrl of Summons dated an 04 2021 along wrln a Statement or clalnr marred by lllegalllyr wnereln ma Plalmlfl unllazerally and/ur erroneously lnlmdueed a dale lnlo lne slalemenl v1C|aIm. The relmnl cause papers warn served vla reglslaled post an 13 04 2023‘ a crrcumslanoa acknowledged by me l=lalnml Al all rnalerlal tlmer the sald service more irregular pleadlng was nut set aslue [13] D25 solbcllurs emphaslzelhallhe sesslans Caumludge granlea lne llbeny lo file afrerh solely due lo me last lhal |he rnenls M lna case have not been ocrlsldeled The case cl Rnrrmn aln Munlandx v Thu naglln Minister of Home Aflaira Mnlaygla Q ors (20121 MLJU 154 ls crled wherein SH Gaak vlam J struck out me apphnatlan wrln nu lloany la rlle afresh unaer Order I! rule 191 (up of Rules ol the High calm 1939 wtlere the menls of me applicartron nave nol been rlaara on me grounds that mare nas been an abuse ul pmeess D2‘: scllcllms funnel vely an the case elhn Chew No v The mag Mlnlslernl Humeuuira &Ol'! [2012] a MLJ 772 In conlena lllanhe uelerrnlnallorr olwnemer Iu gram llberry k) we alrssn srroulr: ml nlnga solely an whether a can has been a ‘ sm xawsluusllmyflégvuvlaxfii “Nana Sum! mmhnrwm .. ll... M my r... nflmnnllly ml. dnuuvlnnl VII nFluNG war heard an we meme Ramer, the Cmm srreuld conslder me canducl and demeanor exhlblted by me mvolved parllee ln rrarldlmg me case. [14] D2‘: solicllars refer In the case 01 Sam: Anauk I [Mgmuwa Guzman Bani Plhlk Dlrl semilrl nun eeberaga Pelabur Lain Vang Tllrut Melahur Di Dalarn Plattgr_-u Eelaburan Delendan Qlgggan) v Chgg 5.5 Hue & Anor [2023] MLJU 1455, and argue me lac! lhal mere has been a breach era peremelory order by the r=lamzm whereln me same rras been rnlenlrunally drsregarded In anllclpatlorl al fillng afresh It ls argued mar me r-«gr. ceurre dlredlnn for me properly dated Shtemerll el Clalm be served on m amaunre In a peremptory order‘ a delalrlc olvmlch should bar the Plalnnfl lrom Ihe dppnnuniry lo lrle afresh [15] The Federal Calm‘: cases ol Llru on 5 Or: v Allen a Glednlll [2001] 3 MLJ 451 and Synd Onur bln glee Mohamud v Perhadanan Naeienal and [2013] 1 MLJ 461 were cllod by D210 argue the enecl ol nnnwmplranee on a peremptory order In Llm oh 5. Ors v Allan L Gledhill (supra) me Federal Court relred on the Engllsh case al;‘1mv_y Mojrria [1931] 3 AH ER 750 and held mar II was nul a mere lallure lo oumply wnn the rules cl mun as there was a specmc noun order dlreeung the lllmg at the amended Wm dl Summons The Federal Court rleld that me appellants eugm lo have appealed ugalrlsl me declsmn slrlklrlg our 7 ‘ am xDwB1MUi/lllyflfigvuvuxfii “Nair s.r.l nuvlhnrwm .. HIGH w my r... nflnlnallly Mlhln dnuuvlnnl VII aFluNG Wm! tneirrrrat aurt tor drsutaedrenee ottne perernpmry erd wnerem me mm; at the second null, cerrtarmng tne aarrre wssus and renets as the mat sun amounted to a dehberale attempt to cwcumvertl the necessary appeal procedure and lharedore constituted an abuse dune proolss Mme eaun nre rederax Court In syed orrrar bin Syed Motumod y Perbldanan Naaxonal Bhd (Supra) held as follvws - -my We man now dew wnh tne mama me It shown In nabd tnst even In the use at Buketl y James nwas wnnedcd IM| a second mm Wed alter (he mu um w annulled our Brunch Mu pemmptury order would be an zhuse Mlhe wurrr prooess and hauls \u be msmlsscd Ynu pmnr was erseuuea lufly by me snguan caun at Aopenl m Jlnov y Mam: (19511: An ER van white tna reneyant plmcwmes ho oormder were set mu VII xne r.e;d—notas as Inllnws -wnere an acmrr had been struck an! on me gmund at me puunmu drscbedxenm M . peremptory order of my mum Ind lit: at ntm mrrrrnemea a seeanu swan mmn the lmuunon Denod u my me am: caule mcuon me coun Ind a mscrelwun under nsc o «a M9[1y(d) to acute out me seeena Icltun on me wanna mat \| was an abuse at me ueurrs pmcess Vn exelcmng mat decreudn tne noun wumd nm tupam to ma prmmpll mt wurl amevs were made to he camphed wml /aawrmrrgry because [Mm rad bdun no uxphnirtton ay rm pl nmtrer nu thus In comply wtth rne peramplnly order made In ma fim man and tnar. ml in Imscaucn rrm he wu uxexy Ia comply vn|h man made -. the second aetm me oommennemem M are ucond aclnn was an anus: :7! me arenas; ul nna cowl and me noun would uxutww nx mscmtren under 0 13 r ID1I71dHa smke n am A e-mat lanw tar eunitdamxon Is whether any expranar-on was aflemd lav nunwmplunm mm tne petumvtnry nmer .n me am sun on «ms Dorm Dunn LJ aasemd WV WI adcya ulaed me at p 135» as loflwa M my vtew ma noun snomd be mtmous Ill aHowmg me seeand swan w canlmu nd mun h-we due ragltd to me use: ayaun..rmr.ng ma pnnunle mar under: are made te be Domphed wm and none be rgnerer [I6] II ts argued by Ms sahcrtors that shomd there be rmneomptrance wrtn the ouulfs peremptory order. the seswna Court 4: mandated to an xwwmuuslmyfligvuvuxfifi “Nate amt nmhnrwm rs. met! a may r... anmnauty -mm: dnuamnt VI muNa v-mat slnke our rne case wllhoul llbeny lo file awash conversely, U1: appropriate nacnurse «or me Plalnllll la to challenge we semrlg aarde dl me default [lldgmem lnmugn an appeal sranllng llneny to me alresn would essanlrally disregard me Hlgh cduna urder daled 20 03 N23 anablrng ma Plarnull la clrcumverll ma appeal process. consmullng an abuse dime oourrs procedures D2 runner argues that me Plalnlnrs non- oomplrance ls aggravllad by me In! of lamperlng wnn caun docurnanl r e by unrlalarally lnaamng a date to ma undaled sealarnenl ul clalrn [171 Tn: Ieamed counsel lor ma Plalrlml‘ Fadll Azuwan mn Zamon, canlends Ihalme case Is not at an advanced slage, and lls merlls rernaln undelennrned The Plairmff paslls max ma Hlgh courrs declslon lo sel aslde me dalaull ludgmenl and ma Sesslanl cnurra decislon lo smke ou| me P|aln|Ifl‘s sull were grounded ln lnegulantles penarnlng lo lne servlce dune wmand slalemenlorclairn ll ls lunner argued mal lna sunalarnrve dlspule berween lna names nas nm bcen naard ur declded by me Sesslans cdun due la me absence ol any rnlarlaculory appllcallon Gwen me: me sun was drsrnrssed al ma Imllal stage. D2 dld not file any delenoe To substanllula lnra porn: the Plalnlrlrs sdllcnora referred (0 ma can 0! Ma lls Pegulm Mallygla a. Ors v Ru Segnran s Krisnnan [2002] 3 MLJ 370‘ and argued that the Court ln that case gmnted lmeny lo we ‘ am xDw§AML1sI|lAyQ¢-gvuvuxfii «nu. a.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. u... M my r... nflmnaflly ml. dnuuvlnnl VII mum Wm! atresri to the blaintins an the grauhda that the suit had not reached In advanced stage in irrigation [1 3] secdndty, the solicitors or the Plaihm argue that the cause at actiari against D2 is still subsisting and that the limitation period pvesulbed under s.at1 in of the Limitation At:t1!5§ has riot set in The claim against D2 is based on a guarantee agreemem dated 28 09 2018 wherein breach occurred upon demand in April 2021 it is lherelove argued that it liberty to refile is hatgrarited D2 would be uriilairty discharged at his liability as a guarantor wherein it would amount in grave intuettce to the Plainltvl The case of Andrew Lu slaw Llrig v United overaou Blllk Malagluil Buried [2013] 1 cu 24 is relied by the Plaintifl, wherein the Federal court held that mt ii ll our mnsldand view itiai iii In: ptennl use the appellaru beinii a Person Mm hi1 given a gitaramas and more iinparumiy In lndemrllly‘ is anrnaiily liaaierui lcaslaiwmmlhewlvlclpil bwvuwelcould nm haw been niade liable Nli Iiibllllyli rum deperldem orsecondlrylo me iiatairiiy ermepiincipai lammwel Helsa pnndpatdebiaittiinsen rte iiabilny Imfllr - comma M Indemmly dun not depend an whether at. principal debt is enloltznhle it has no releianbe in law to the obligation on any third pelsan iii sunset me iiaailiiyatitie pevsun wha HESQIVCII In Irrdemrllly can be more extensive than that of the liability or the pl apal bonimr [15] The Plaintitrs snllcncrs ultimately argue that the discretion M the Ccrurls to disenntiriue or dismiss an action, with or without liberty to file ‘ am xDwBtMUsIWyQ5§ttuvl:><Wi “Nair s.n.i nurlharwm be UIQG M my i... nflmnnflly MIMI dnuuvlml Vfl aFlt.lNa WVM

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-61-03/2023

PEMOHON LUSH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD RESPONDEN Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Application for Leave to commence judicial review - an Order of Certiorari to quash the Respondent's decision which is deemed to have been made on 7.3.2023 on the grounds the said Decision was illegal,void,unlawful and/or in excess of authority - a mandamus order for the Respondent to recognise and give effect to the decision of the Federal Court dated 9.12.2022 in the case of Wiramuda (M) Sdn Bhd v KPHDN which has held,amongst others that section 4C of the Income Tax Act 1967 is unconstitutional as it contravenes Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution - Whether the application raises important questions of law - Whether the application is frivolous and vexatious.

18/12/2023

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=50a553b4-29e7-4c9c-bc08-43365acc8fe7&Inline=true

18/12/2023 10:57:02 WA-25-61-03/2023 Kand. 39 S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N tFOlUOcpnEy8CEM2WsyP5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—25-51»o3/2023 Kand. 39 12/12/2132: 1n:s7-n2 mum ugnnum TINGGI MALAVA nu xuau LUMPUR mum wnuma PERSEKUTUAM KLIALA LUIIFUR, muvsu (amueum KUASA«K|.IA$A xrusy wggmonorum umupg szmxm KENAK Mg N wA.2se1.a:u2n;; Damn perkars mm Kspulusan Rwspovden sepum yang dlnyalakan can flunggap dalam snrax-sura| Psmomn b-nankh 2:22:72: dun mun dllngglp msampauan kepada Pemomn pada e32n23. Dm Dam Denrzra Seksven 4: ma Cukaw Pundaoalan 1957 Dan Dahm pertara hak asau ke ates nana sepem yangmpvmnlukkavl flv hawah Fuss! 13(2)Fur1smbagaan Fesekuluan, Dan Dalam pemam sumu kspululan Mahkamah Persekuluan mauyua GI uawam Rayuan SMI Nu ntmaeoa/znzztw; yang Inlih mbenkan pad: 912 2022 Dun Davam plenum suam pemnhnnan unmk anlnm mm mm Pmmlah Cnmnrin din suam Pennlzm Mandamus Dan »..¢ 1 ul 1: sm muocwzyaczmzwsynsw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Dalam perkam Amran 53 xemenxaeuzn Mnhknmah zmz Antam LUSH nsvaowsur sun arm mo. Syulkn: msmnmaz (zusus-on Pemnmn Dan KETLIA PEMGARAN HASIL mum MEGERI Rssuorvuen Judumlnl lnlvoduclian 1 me Apphcam on 532023‘ med an applicallon «or weave |o commence Judicial vevxew procaedmg (Em-.|aIuvI 1) under Order 53 olthe Rules alcoun 2012 (R06) seeking, mteraha. the (allowing orders 1.1 An Order cf Cerlloran to wash me Respondents decision made on 5 3 2023 and cammunioaled no me Auphcanl an the Sam: dale The Appnun: auageu Ihal me sand Daemon was megal, void. unrawim and in excess 0! iulhcnry Auaninnany, .1 allegedly breached or pnnovples ov na|ura\ muse, nan been mauonax, umeesoname, and resunea to me denial 01 me Appncanrs Iegmmane expectations. «.2 A Mandamus on-zer m oampal the Rasponaenn m acknuwveuga and enforce me decision of me Federal Cuun dated 912 2022 m we case cl Wlramuda (M) Sdn and V4 K-um Fongnrnh Hun Dullm mum [arm] 5 MLRA 25 mm] 5 MAR 96 202314 ML! 15:; [2023] 5 CLJ 21 (tho Wlumuda Dec nu), whvch was held that secnon 4c of me Income Tax Act 1967 (lTA] As unconsmunonax as n canuavenes Amcle |3(2)a1\he Federa\ Consmulmn (Fe), »...xem m xF01uD:rmEyBcEM2wsyP5w «mm. Snr1|\nuuhnrwH\I>e U... w my n. .mmn.u-y mm: mmn Vfl mum Wm! 33. ‘rrle lesl lam dawn lur leave I0 bclnnlenca e lualolal IEVIEW lrl WRP Asle Plclflc son and (supra) are as lollows 33 1 wllelbel me sublecl matter ls amenable to ludlclal rEVlEW, and llslb 33.2 from lbe malenals available wrlelrlel lne apnllcellon ls lnvolaus and ll rlal lnougm as irlvclousl lb conslder Inal lne Appllcan! has an arguable ease lb oblaln lne rellel souglll a( me subslanlive neallng. 34 nle pnllelples gbvelnlng eppllcallbns lbl leave ll: eulnlllenoeloololal review Drooeedlngs llave also been set oul lrl Tlnq Kwnr Mam al ols v. Pengumean Danallarla Nasional lslld ll. ols lzlzusl l MLRH 501; [zonal 1 cu in; man 5 ML! no ell 69 where Gepal sn Ram JCA (as he men was) held llur ln. Hlgh Conn mule rla| an ln|D lne MIMI 0! me we el mo leave slage lcs lole l! only lo see lllne appllcallnn (or leave ls lnyololls so loo wlll me Doun be elllllleo la lelose lenve ll ll Ii a case more me subyeel nlallel av me leylew ls nrle VWHCH by eenlea lawlellml wnllen law or me common law) ls nen.loalaeble.' 35. ll ls lnle lrlal me Appllcarlt have lo sallsly me lesls propnunded in me abovemenllurled cases lb secule lrle leave to cammenoe me luolclal review ploeeeolrlgs. Al lhle stage. lrle calm need rlal gb lnlo me menls of the case. bul only to see ll me suhlecl llllaclel ls amenable lo ludlclal review or Whelher llle appllcahon lbr leave ls lrlvolous 36 lrl any event, El judlclal revlew ls the dlsclellcn of the CDIAH. lhe appllcallon Var leave In oummenoeludlclal rsvlaw mly be allowed lrl excapllonal arcumslances as exnlalned bylne lllen sunleme cburl lll Govimmlnl 0! Malaysia 5 Anor v. Jlgdls Slllgh [1957] 2 Mu 1! 1DlB]1 MLRA 207: [IDI7] CLJ REP I10 whlch held’ ‘Held allowlrlgllle lppsll (1)1712 olslsellbll ls sllll wlll'l me aaonsla 3:1 by way af loolelel lmew bol Mlem lrlele VA an appenl Dmvllmrl ivillibll lb ln. applicant cemorarl smlllo llol nbnnally lssue unless lnele 1S sllelnn a clear lac): llllleelellen el 3 blmlll lnllum In oenbnn -elne ilalulory duly ol ln anplopnale cases a sefluus bleaal olllle prlvlclplus blllalwal lusllbe' ». u nlll SIN lFD1LID:vvlEyBCEM2WSyP5w “Nair e.n.l luvlhnrwlll be UIQG In may l... nflfllrllllly MIMI dnuavlml y. .:lulle Wflxl Thu doclslon omu Conn The Pull va Rulpondnnl do mud aaclulon ls Imnnubll kl ]ud|I:In| review 37, Order 53 rule 2m ol me ROG expressly allows persons who are ‘advelsely alfecled" by me decislcn made by a pulzllc authority la mmala judlclal ravlew appllcahons. For ease or relevance, submle 4 IS neproduoed as lollaws; 1;; Any aanan who Is adversnly amlea by me aeoam. ncllun or umliborl m vulallcm ca ma exelclse ol me am»: duly m ilmcllon mall he erlllflnd Ia make me applllzahon.‘ 35. The raqulremems ol Order 53 oflhe R00 are mandatory and must be compiled wnn‘ lallmg wnlcn ma appllcallon would nol be enlenamed by ma Com. :9 The Pulallve Respomienl sulmms lnal II has made no oeclalon wh-on IS amenable to ludlclsl revlew and mac me Appllcanfs appllcamn IS premamre ll is to say lhanhe Fulallve Respondent's non-reply la ma Apphcanfs leller does no: amounl lo a GGOVSIOH amenable to ludiclal levlew under Order 53 or me ROG 40 ll ls Inle law ll‘la| «allure or relusal by a puhllr: aumamy to make a declslorl IS also amenable la .u l review The coma wlll have la allow me leave lor judlclal revlew n such clrcumslanaes 41 ln onmgu Rldovifl Apt v. Kulua Pungur-ll M II Dalam Nogorl [2013] MLRHU las; [2015] 1 Lus 3&4; [Z018] ulL.Iu Z18,A2lza7I Nawawl J (now JCA) had allowed me leave appllcallon and had Maled mar V ‘[141 on me same day. um Ivnllcnnl ||Iu mm. lo an new nmlnu lu lluil poslmm lhal amsuanl la Anlds lx crime Malays<a—DenmaIk an and me Cass laws paymerlls renewed by Ihe appllcanHmm Wu: swue an um wbp<:| Io wvlhholdmg lax Furlhuflflflril um lppllum vllleulnd Mal Amde IX :71 me Ma|aysla—Denlvlark on mevalls ever 5 a mo ol ma ITA may ma pyllclnl -Ill: -xsn-my mm In «ll. mm mm M the DGIR ml. ea ulpnnd favourably Io mo =DD|k:nm's rupaunlzllon um lapul, man an Ippllcanl wlll um lu lppvll and ununnmlon As lniug niuzl-d lyylm noun. u... 12 at 1: am lF01LID:vnEyBCEM2WsyF5w «ma. a.n.l nuvlhnrwm a. U... a may he nflmnnllly -mm: dnuuvlml Vfl .mm Wm! us: When me new cans ed respond lo we awucarrrs letter dated 2» :2 2016, me appmrmm Ina vombon mat Ine DGIRs\enerdn1e«1 29 :2 we rs lhe decrerdrr cl Ivvu new and deemed [D he luv: um sewed an we appurcam on 291 2017 mm, m annuum med mus npplic ion for judiclll nvitvt Icl|nn." qemprrasrs added! 42 u re Impoflanl Ia nole ma\ Order 53 at me ROC allows for a broader scope 07 revwswabre decxsxons as compared |o the ptewaus pmvvsmns under the RINGS of the High Court TQEU. A decision deemed made by (he Putative Respondenl Is sumcrem ta Imuale an appIIca|IarI «or rudmm review In Yang Kwnr Ham a on (supra) me Court olAnDea\ hem . 160} The dmer pom! mud by learned mmsnl I: luv: us wI|h var lass confidence, I: «rm there was here no daemon‘ by anwne And Smce o 5: r my speaks a! a ’d5u5\on me apmrcams have no cuuu to argue on an ippbcamn formalize! review Ann .m.mm .3... 0. 5.1 r 2(A|munno1 beread In ndnmdn Ilmusl be read mnhexnnlly, loyulhtr mm o. 5: r us) which umvlflas {an in» run: md togmtlurlndlnlhihrpvoparcanl xl. llnan ha um mm mm nnd not ways be m Iclunl duc’ ‘ml hy uuncom.” qemprrasrs added) 43 I noticed me: me Hrgrr own his adomed a similar posllron In anew-ng ]udIo4a\ revrew agamst deemed deasrorrs made by punnd amharmes In ur regard, me High Court has declined K1 rely on older decrerons which were plemvsad upon Order 53 Me 2(4) of me Rules o1H|gh Court 1930, where we ambrn of revreweme demslons are mrmed. 44. 1 can prmnde no better reference than me case at lmplan Selaka Still and v. Monml Knwangau Mnlryall [2022] MLJU 3473: [2022] AIIIEJ 2020 wherein my Iaamed brother, Wan Ahmad Fand J held as (snows — 1271 Thu Veamed Sennur Fenian! come: allranefl my Jllerman 1:: ma rmpugrred Vellsrand revened me In me judgment Mme com dmppeax Abdul Rzhmln arr. Abdmlah Murrrrs Or: V Dnmk a-ndu Kuala Lurr-pur 3. Ann! [man] 5 ML! 704 ca Yhe Immd src «mu suhmlflna Ihal an. Mlnl :1’: nan-nxpun to mu lmvnnlmi mm am not connlhne a dock‘ rr wmmn me meamna ov a 53 r 2m In mun Ivva rag: u al :1 srmF01uD:wEyBcEM2wsyP5w “Nana sm-w nmhnrwm .. d... m may r... mrr.u-y -mm: dnuamnl vn mum WM Velmed SFC oonleuded max any anemvl «a convert a ‘deemed «mm...-' would win nu to m -nmcm munlnn m an mm “dncisi9n." :25} wnm resgecn um III-suld Ipprolchlht eemm. nnlms spawn: mm m Abdm Rahmzn am Abdullah Mumr mm cannon My raawm Vs um: n. dI=| Ion 01 mt Eoun M Appnll u prumtnfl an o as r um cl mu larmur Rulvs offligh Conn mm. u states as ram. . Any pursun Mw ‘s advarssw iflucled by me aeesmns of my pm: aulmnlysnafl he enuuea m make me apnncamn Hnwever um um o 5: 72(4) er H1: soc wuwdes as Mkzws . Any pvnan who II advcunly mnchd nynu dtclllon. mum or ammo" m reianan «a me smslence oi me public duly or mnzl-on man be anuueu in mm me appncanen [23] The nut o 5: u 244; am. RDC hu did In pm. clslon, mien nr omansm. m ulallnn In mu . me. no 1M mu: may or duncllan " In my wew me mm ommmn ls slmply . am... In makl . am n. n In nandicitinn. wnn lhc Iroduc onafim ward “om15sk'm' mu MW 0 s: r 244 mu quullon of in “mm .1 duclllnn" don mil nenw mu." (emphasxs added) a) (See Syarikal Kapasi Sdn and v. Mum Kewzngzn Mllaysla and olhlr cnus [znzsj AMEJ u471;[2n2:I]M|_Iu 52 m an Agnculnm (M lysla) sun an-1 v. mnml Kewangan Mlluysla [N23] 4 AMR as . R023] MLJU Ann; 2:) CMMT Inmnnmm Ltd v. Mnnml Klwangan Malaysia [2022] MLJU :50) 45 Based on the above, u us evident that me Pulauve Respondents deemed decnsmn M 132023 ansmg from us nan-rep\y m |he Apphcam‘s Venercan he amenable to judwclal rewew undev 0 53 rule 214) of me ROC. v... u M 1: sm xrcnuocpniylczmzwsyfisw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII nF\uNG Wm! out of mm 45. The Puvatwe Respondent oontends that me apphcaliun is mne- barred by eoprdximeteuy 5 years Smce tne VA 2017 Assasment was completed on 25.2 2015 Huwevar, I find (ha| me sumac! matter «or the judtcten revvew perlams lo the Pufalwe Respondents deemed deetston to reluse me Aupltcanl s Duscharge Appltcauon m oompnanee wim Wvamuda use on, and no! me ‘(A 2917 Assessment 47. In an Afirlculluu (supreme High com recogmsed trns - 1301 am mm M make any decmon n we context at the urgency at me (lme (rams, would ammm|In .n Dim on wumn mo Cantu! cl 0 5:: vzw at me Roe and I sa hoki ‘HI: IA r’HnII;1iun or omlsslon ls mw um nuupct milk! o1 Inn Inm Ippflcullon re. jufllclll ..yt.~ n L5 noun iuulrwu dime mu ny Kin new ‘ (emphasvs added) 43 In tne mslam ease, I find Iha| \he Appucanrs ntsdnarge Appnoeudn to and Putetwe Reipundam prermscd upon lhe Federal Cam’: dectstdn In Wlramuda dated 9.12.2022. The Applicant seeks comphancs Imm tne Pulauve Respondent unm me Wiramuda neetston, as Enclosure 1 Ieflects the Fuulwe Respondents refusal to comply cleany. the grdunds of Ihis eppncattdn arose by 9.12.2022. meuevore, this Court Mews mat Enclosure I was med w\|hin 3 munlhs1mm9.12 2022 (men lhegrmmds dune applucauon arose), and also warm 3 months fmm me dale of the Fulahve Raspondenrs deemed daemon of 7 3 2023. Anematlvo Remedy 49 The Pulauve Respondent conlended Iha| the Apphcant musl exhausl Ihe uuemetwe ramsdy olappeallng Id tns SCIT. so The Apphcanl M the tnstanx case seeks Mandamus orders Var me Pulalwe Respondam to mlund the vaxes paid me previous VA. where gams from compulsory aoqmsman were prevtously subjected Ia lax Therelore, \ am 0! the view that the High Calm has lhe aulhnmy lo gram such when. »..us.m m lF01LID:pnEyBCEM2WsyF5w «mm. s.n.t lunhnrwm .. tn... m may t... mmnuflly -mm: mmn VI mum Wm! 51 Even in respect pt judioiat reviews against tax assessments under the ITA, the their supreme court has held in Jagdls slngh (supra) that the Revenue is not ininiunetrorn ipoicial review notwithsianoino the availa lily ot an alternative rernedy. so long as exceptional ctmumstartces exist in the torni pl * a char lack nlillrtxdiclton ora blalanlfutlurl no p--tonii IDIVII statutory duty or in appmpnale cases - lnrluux Bvlach at ml nrlnelptse ot nmuml iuIa‘cl.. " (emphasls added) 52 The court views that the Putative Respendartl tailure to tollpw the Federal courts oecision in wirarnuoa renders iis dactston flawed Moreoveri t am of the VIBW that the Ptnallve Respondent has no right to retain the taxes paid by tlie Appltcant tor gains troni the compulsory acquisition ol the supieci Lands Aoditronatty, the Putative Respondent Hal also unjustly ennohod trorn ootti collection and retaining or such taxes 53 Based on the above, it is my View that the Aoplioanrs case is neither triyolous nor yexatious. This application raises iniooriani quesltons or law‘ . ta) whether the F'u|alIve Respondent can retuse to reoognise and give ettect to the wiraniuoa Decision which has held, section Acot the ITA to he uneonstnutional as it oontrairenes Arl13{2| at the FC? to) whether the Pulahve Respondent can vefuse to retund the Applicant the amount at taxes arising troin and Datd on the compensation received tor the compulsory awutstlton ot the subiect Lands rtoIwt|hs|andtrlg the wiriairiuoa Decision by the Federal court? 54 The court is ot the Vtew that the above questions ot law is more suitable to bedeclded by this court at the stmstanltve stage At the teave appllcalient the court is not supposed to descend into Ute suhstanttve merits of the application a... is oi XI IN lFD1LID:pvtEyBCEM2WsyP5w “Note Smut luvlhnrwttt be UIQG In may i... oiiin.ii-y MVMI m.i.n VI artutta mi Connluslon 55. Eeanng m mind |ha( nus Is an applicauon for weave to commence wmaal review proceeding under Order 53 of me ROG‘ m .5 we that Iasl var leave to commence mo: ma-c-en review be mmpnea mm 55 Having considered me appllcalmn‘ u \s my apmion mm me Apphcanl has met me leave threshold 01 me ]udicAa\ wow. u \s dear Ihal mere :5 a clear and arguame case puesemed by «he Apphcam Tms apphcaucn «or leave us neither frivomus nor meuous 57 Accordingly. we appucenon for weave m cummenae judicial rewaw prooeeamg us hereby aHcwed wun oosls m me cause Da|ed |% December 2021 Ahmed Kama! om Md Shamd Judge Hrgh coun Kuala Lumpur rugu1M1l rNxF01uD:wEyBCEM2wsyP5w «we. smuw ...m.mm .. H... e may he nnmmu-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! Counsel: For the Applicant Dale’ Nlhn Nadkami (En Chns Toh P Roo mm mm) Tetuan Lee Hlshammuddnn Allen 8. G\edm|| Peguambela flan Feguamcara Level 5, Menars 1. Dulamas, Solins Dulimas‘ ND 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, soaao Kuala Lumpur For me mauve Respondent En Mohd Hams bm Hanapw Senior Revenue Counsel {cm Azleena :2: Ma Khalruddrn‘ Revenue Cmmse\ mm hum) Lembaga Hasfl Da\am Negerl, Jaba|sn Undang~Undang, Ara: 16. Menarz Hasi\. Persuanan Rwmba Perman. Cyber 5, 63000 Cybenaya‘ Salangor p... 1: DV :1 m xF01uD:wEyBcEM2wsyP5w «mm. sew ...m.mm be H... e may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 1.3 A Mandamus Order «-2 compel the Rsspandam to aamnwledge and apply [he Vega} posmon alabllshed m the case 0! wwamuda, ma cumpansalrens reamed by me Applxcant for the compulsory aazuisman M ICE rand parcel (Lands) by me Selangur Sale Aumanry m me year of assessmant (VA) ZDI7 are VIM taxable undav Sea n 4C oi the ‘TA and hence, Sholfld not be suqected to Income |EX‘ ‘é 1 No. um: Cempcnnnion YA R-ulna (RM) 1 1‘ we Pr mass mmon as :0) 1.011.350 an zan sum, mm. Danakn nmn Swing [Land A) \ l In No Fl’ 44557 UOJIUEL H5 (D) 545 D00 00 2017 3145:. Mum Dangku. mm» Sepang (um: sy n. ma vrueesuaauap. HS(D) smmssoo zmv lausu, Mum Denqkn D-avih sepang [Lind C) N Na P'Tufl70(10.'S424).H5(D) ma7.1aaun znn mm. Muklm nwgku Daevah Sspang (Land m V ‘Nu Pruavzuuazssy H510) .,e.mm 2017 ; 31463‘ Mukwm Deogkxl Daerah 1 S695”? (lung E! v. Nv Pr A5171uo:mHHs1D> wsuooun 2017 IH962. mum Damn, Daemh Snpmg (Luna r) vu Nu FY am: (103241) HS rm 9 73m5ooa 2w mm, Mum nengku, Daerah Sepung (Mad 6) ‘ P... 3 ., .. srNxF01uo:pnEy5cEM2wsyP5w «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e HIQG w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! 1 A A Mandamus Order to instruct tne Respondent allowing the Applicant to submit revised lax computations tor tne VA 2017 on the bean. thallhs campensnllons iecetved by the Applicant on tne Lands are not considered as inoorne under tne in, and terms Respondent to accept and give etrecl to lne revised lax l:ompula|inrls accordingly. 1.5 A Mandamus order to insuuol the Respondent to retitnd me sums M laxes paid by me Applicant an the oompansahnn reoeived tor tne compulsory acquisition or the Lands aeeerding lo Wlramuda Decision, togelner wnn lmeresl accruing at me rate ol 5% per annum on tne said aunt (calculated lrom me day on which tne Applicant nas made payment 0! sum taxes to me Respondent unul the date tne taxes are fully velundad lo lne Applicant by tne Respondentt, I6 A Declaration that the Rapondent IS bound by and must adhere to the decision ol tne Federal Cowl in me Wlramufla Decision lnat, amongst others, secnon AC or the ITA IS ttnoonstlluuenal as it contravenes Article 13(2) ottne Fc: t7 A ueetaration tnat lollowing the VViramudz Decision, tne compensations received by tne Apolint tor me compulsory aoqulslllons oi r|S lands by tne Selarlgar state Aumunly in me VA 2017 ave not taxable under Sectinrl AC oi the ITA and nenoe not sub}ec1 to lncurne tax: 1 a That all neoessary and conssquennal dlredlorls and orders be given, and 1.9 All dlner and further relierwhicn Ihls Honourable Court deems M and Draper 2. After the neanng. I allowed me Applicants application rm leave tor judicial review (Enclosure 1|. This judgment provides me rationale oemnd my decision. Blckground Facts 3. The following salient facts are generally undisputed The background narrative presented nere is aduplad. eilher lM|h or s... 4 ul ll nt lFD1LID:rmEyBCEM2WsyP5w “Nair amt navlhnrwm be ti... a may i... min.u-y MVMI dnuavlml VI nrlutta war wmnout moamcamons, from the statement, Amdavm VI Supporl and subrntsstons oi the parues 4. Tne Appncant ts a company monrpmaled in Mataysta and havmg omee address at Level 23A, not my Tower 2, Lebuh IRC, lot Resort cny. 52502 Putrataya The Anplicam s pnncIpa\ actnnty is in the new at pmpeny development and properly Tnyeetment 5 Al III matsnat times, ma Applicant nae been the owner and registered pmpnetcroflhe Lands. Tne Appucant had aoqwea nnd new the Lands as W5 stock-tn-trade unlll lhev cumputsory aoquismon by the setangor stats Aulhonly. The campensahun awumsa to me Apphcant Ior each of the Lands are as iollows um: A am on «so no a 7 RM 546 mm on 1:» :2 RM ocjss on V (at y _ p RMHe7.7e0oD V fa) E R 54 12000 M s an: 132 some (at ¥ :3 am 71145000 6 on 23.2 zotay me Apphcanl med In tnev Bnrang C (Barang Nyata CukavFen:1:paI:n)thetr lax return (at me YA mu 1 Upon the Appltcanrs submission ennen then tax tetum Form fut YA 2017,aecmdmg|u Salmon so oltne ITAT lhe assessment lot ‘(A 2017 VS a deemed assessment 5 Tnere was no appea\ was lunged vta Form a In Ihe Speo<a\ Cornmtssionavs or Income Tax (scrr) tegardmg tne assessment Issued on 23.2.2019. 9‘ Gwen that no appeal under sect-on 99 at the ITA, the assessment stand as vahd and Ma‘. 10. The wnamuaa Dec-suon was decided by the Federal court on 9 12 2022 e$1abhshmglha(Sact|an Ac onne ITA is unconsntuuanal ma 5 at n m tFD1LIO:rmEy5CEM2WsyF5w «mm. s.n.t ...n.mn .. U... a my me nrW\n|U|y mum: flnunmnt VI mum Wm! ii. Prior to wirernuda Deoision. irie Respandenfs poslllntl was me compensalian received from compulsory acquisition of propefly held as skmk in trade are taxable undar Seclmrl 4C 91 the ITA in Ilghl onrie Respondents position, one Applicant recognised trier ine oornpensaiion received lroni ine compulsory aoqulsmori ol tne Land as HS income and subjected the same to in VA 2017 12. Subsefluenlly, the Applicam aware ollhe Wlramuda Decision hyllle Fedaril Court 01 Q 12 2022 Amangzil olhen‘ the Wlramuda oeoisiori nes been reporied by news outlets in Malaysia, lrlcludlrlg the Edge, and in the legal enioie iiited ‘Is it Taxing or inadequate CDMDBFISEUDH me! la UnDDnslllu|lorIa|7" by Tun Abdul Hamid Mnhamad published in the Current Law Journal. 13 Pursuant lo tne Wlramuda ueeision, oornpensatiari recaived by Iiridownars lrorii trie oornpulsory eoouisilion o1 orooe s snould not be suoiecl lo irioorne tax under section AC 0! the ITA 14 on 21 2.2023, trie Applicant issued a leller io tne Respondent Tne Applicant requested tne Respondent to give ellect la the wirernuda Decision and lo disenenge and relund the (axes relating to me oornpensation received lor tne lend tnisenarge Applltatlon) 15 Tne Applicant rias requested tne Respondent ID provide wnllen oonlirrnation oelore 6.3.2023, veiling which i| would be constrained to lake ll trial the Respondent lied decided to reiect Applicants nisonarge Application 16. To date. the Applreant has yet to receive any reply lrorn the Respondent pursuant to its letter dated 21 2 2023. on lnis b’=lSISi tne Respondent is deemed tn hava declded on 6.3.2023 um ii will be rejecting the Applioenrs nerge Application ie. tne Respondenrs Decision The grounds lor Judlclul nvlow 17. Trie grounds ol reiiel sougnl are based on me oonlenlion met me Respondent‘: Decision was illegal in excess oi aulhnrily, irrational 1 unreasonable. procedurally improper‘ rnade in breaon at me pnnclples or natural iustioe and prooedural leirness and in preacri dl mesom IN lFD1LlD:rmEyBCEM2WsyF5w “Nair s.n.i luvlhnrwlll be mad o may i... onoin.ii-y MVMI dnuavlml VI nFluNfl mi una Appllcanfs leglnnrale expectahons Thae contentions are supporled by several reasons among wnron rnolude me lollowrng: - 17 l llluqalily (a) The Resporvdam had acted unlawfully oy rejechrlg ma dlscharging applicallon and falllng lo rrnplernenl lhe Wiramuda Deusloflr lo; Tne Respondam helng a pany ln lne prpoaadrng at Wlramuda Decrsnan, possesses oomplela awareness of me sald deaslon The Respondenr also oanems «mm me legal counsel provlded by us Legal Deoarlrnenl wlnrpn snould have advlsed lnal lne olsenarge Appllcaunn ought lo pa allowed and me tau: pale on me oompensanon received for me Land ough| (0 oe dlscharged and ramnded in MN 0! lne Wllamuda Declslon: (c) Tne Wlramuda Decrsion ls blndlrlg on me Respanaenl as an an or me execuuve The Respondent nas no lurlsdlchon lo rgnore the same Arnongsl timers‘ me Federal Court has neld In Arumugam Plllai v. Govornmunl M Mullylln man] 2 MLJ zu; man] 1 MLRA 421, |hal ‘a declslon ol any noun or oornpelenl jurlsdlcllon ls blrldlng on Revenue as on any subject 01 lne land‘ and lnala [allure by me Revenue lo lake aclmn pursuanllo a com declslan ls llahle to be challenged by way or ludlclal revrewz ml The Respondanrs Declslon nas exceeded lls powers under me ITA In llghl ol the wrrarnuda Decislorl lnal Seclran Ac ls uncanslllulmnal, (e) The Responflenfs Declsron also vlolales lna Applrcanrs ngnls as guaranteed under Anlcles 13(2) and/or Anlcle 96 enne Fc‘ and U) The Respondenrs declsron rp |ax me gains irom me compulsory icqulslhorl of ma Land lp Inoome lax oursuanl lo Salmon Ac o1 the WA is clearly unlawml rn accordance wllh Wiramuda Declslon Tnls actlon nas deprwed lhe Aopliaanl ollrra use cl llsfunds Hence, Iha r... r cl 1! m lF0luD:pnEyBcEM2wsyP5w “Nair s.n.l luvlhnrwm .. UIQG a may r... pflmnnflly mm. dnuavlml v. .nuno vtmxl Respondent ough| Io comperlsals the ADD|lcan| acoordmgly lncludlrlg lmevesl on me owed refunds. 17.2 Ilrlttiona tyand unre dnaoloness The Respondent nae also acted inaliorlzlly and unreasonably ln relusing to allow the Dlscnarge Appllcetrdn desplte belng aware ol the wlramuda Declsnn. To date, the Respondent nas lelled Io pmvlds any yelrd reasons as ro wny n should not ndnour and lrnplement tne wnemuda Dec 17.3 Logltlrnete Expoctatlone Tne Respondents actlon or lnacnon has cleany vrdlared me Applleents leglllrnere expeclallons tnattne Respondent would ednere an element tne law, penlculerly as estaollstled by tne Federal court in the ‘/Wamuda Deolsiun case tor the Putntive Respondent ta. The Pulallve Respondent sutzmns tnattne Aopltcant In lhls case has lnlerred a deemed deotsron lrom lne Pmallve Respondents non» reply to me Aoplrcents letter dated on or before 6.3 2023 «or tne letter dated 21 2.2023) and on or before 7 3.2023 llor tne lener dated 27 2 2023) Tnls non-responses IS regarded as e ‘dectston“ by the Putetwe Respondent acoordtnd lo the Annlloents 19. The Puvatlve Respondent oontends tnar tne non—reply to me Applrcenrs letters carlrlol oe lnterpreteo as a deemed decislon by tne Pulallve Respondent and me snall not amenable to an eppllcallon tor ludizzlal reylew under order 5: oltne Roc 2o Tneretore, tnls appllcallan pvemalure, irivolousl vexatlous‘ abuse ol prdeess end does not lulfill all the baslc requlremenl at order 53 Rule 2|4)a1Ihe ROC wnlcn reoulres that tne person who are entltle In file Judlclal Rel/law Appllcahorl rs a person who are etlected by the decisron ol tne puhllc aulhclmy r... n at 1: rn lF0tuD:pvtEyBcEM2wsyP5w “None Smnl lurlhnrwlll be e... e may r... nflnlnullly sun. dnunvlml VI .nuno ml 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 According to Putatlve Respondent, the Applicant is essentially attempting lo quash the decision olttre Putative Respondent tonne VA 2m 7 by lrylng to iunipstarl a lrasn data otapplloaucn lauudioial Review Application. rlie Applicant‘: leave applicalidrr tor iudicial review was mad our dl tinre and [here is no application tor extension of time is tiled The Pulillve Respondent submits |ha| rtie crux pl tne Applicants application lor iudicial review beldre lhls Honourable court is against ttie deelsion ol lne Putative Respondent on 23 22ota lpr YA zun wnere tne Applicaru seels an order to quasn tlie said decision and also to relund ttie paid Lax by ttie Anpllmnt The duration between the decision made by the Respondent Var VA 200 wnrcn was dated on 23 2 zoi s and me date pltne Applicants «ling olthls leave application on 3.3 2023 is apprdxirrialely 5 years. The Putative Respondent submits ttiat ltiougti tne dlscrehon is still wiln tne court to act by way of iudicial review in revenue cases, tne order olpenrnran will not be issued unless the Applicant could prove lnat itiere is an apparent lack M iurisdicrion or bla|an| larlure by me Respondent to pertprni statmory duly orltrere ls a severe bieacn ol natural lustioe caused by lne Respondent Based on the present case iaots, wnen ttre assessment tor YA 2ot7 was issued by lne Puuative Respondent upon the Applicant subrrilr ttiair tax return. no appeal were made Tnis implied tnat itie Applicant conceded to the assessment ll tne court allows me Applicants iudioral review application, I| would mean tnls cairn bypassing tne SCIT. The Putative Respondent Submits me facts and situatlon in tnis instant case diner tram llipse in the wrramuda Decision In Wifamuflai lne cnallenge questioned tne validity or section 4:: oi ltie lTA subsequent to an audit. leading to me issuance of an Additional Assessment lor VA 2015. However, in lnis case, lne Applicant dld rlvl get audited and they declared and labelled tne ponrpensation as part of their slow in trade. Based on paragrapn 13 dvtne Amdavrt in Sunplm amrrrred by Tan swee Peng. tne Puvallve Respondent submits tnat tne Applicanl hgeloul INlF01LlD:rmE‘1BCEM2WSyF5w «mu. s.ii.i luvlhnrwm s. UIQG a may i... bflmnnflly siiii. dnuavlmt vn .riuvn Wm! aclmmed lnal prlor lo we vlnramuda Declslorl. lhe Pulallve Respondenfs poslllorl was me cumperlsallorl reoelved lrom mmpulsury aequlaluon ol pmpefly held as sleek in lraae was Laxoable under seeuarl AC or me HA. In llne wnll |Ile Pulallve Responderlls pas. lflflu me Appllcanl reoogmzea the ooruoensallon lrom lrla compulsory acqulsmorl of ma Land as lls lneome Ind sulaleelea to moome lax VI VA 2u17 29 Therelorel based on the above paragraph, |he Appllcanl during ma suhmlsslorls cl lrlslr VA 2017 was eomplylrlg wllh Secllon 4c of me um, much was then a vslld law. The exrllell 15.5 expllcllly lndlca|ed lhal lhe Appllcanl Illed men e~C an 232 2013 lor VA 2017 abldmg lo the prevalllng valld law an lrlal llme an Thus, ma Plnallva Respondents argued mac (ha Older m exluml 13.3 me Federal counl should be read prospecllvelylnrolhsrlulure assessment and rlul relroapeclwely tor omer cases 31 The declslorl onne reoaral Cour! was made on 9 12 2022. There was no menllon m me Order that me law wculd be read relrosoecuuely nor plospecllve In such slcuallorl, one ruusl look an each slluallon The Pulallve Respondent urgeo llus Court lo lake mm eonsluerallon me ease of Semanyih Jay: Sdn am: v. Ptnudblv Yannh Du n Hulu Lungs! and armhor can pan] 1 MLJ 551: mm A M RA554: (201715 cm 525; mm 4 MAR I23-‘ind Vignosh Nalduall Kuppusamy Nlldu v. Pram: Bonanza sen Blvd 5 Anolhlr Appnl [2023] 3 MLRA :33; [1023] 4 cm 715; [2023] 2 ML! 175 and lo lake ll as prospeclwa mllrlg TM Law 32 The Federal Court ln WRP Ari: Pacule sdu Bhd v. Ylnlga Nasinuul Bhd [mu] 4 CLJ 475; [mu] 4 MLRA 257; [2012] 4 ML! 2% al 303, Speaklrlg lrlrougrl Sunyadi Hallm Omar FCJ (as he [hen wasl held‘ > Leave may be granled ll me lem Ippllcallorl ls ml mougmolas (molmlsl em ll ltava IE orarlleal an arguable ms lll Vavur M grarlllrlw me rellel aaugrll at llle suhslanllve hsannfi may be me resunarll oulsoma. A noer musl he allachod In on appllcalsorl Ihuugh l e nulls: mu raansr var ludlcnal ruvlaw ls amenable IO mdlblal revlew ulrwlnlely no sueess my be arlusageu.‘ mmaru ru lF01uD:pnE‘1BCEM2WsyF5w «mu. Saul nuvlhnrwlll be u... a may he nflnlrullly ml. dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl ml

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-111-04/2023

PEMOHON AAISHAH HEALTHER BONG BINTI COLIN RESPONDEN 1. ) Pendaftar Muallaf Wilayah Persekutuan 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Application for Leave to commence judicial review(JR) to challenge the alleged omission on the part of Pendaftar Muallaf WPKL to decide on the Applicant's application to renounce lslam - Whether the subject matter is amenable to JR -Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

18/12/2023

YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=27ad2dde-67de-4bfc-8e3d-295e3a616d19&Inline=true

18/12/2023 12:55:40 WA-25-111-04/2023 Kand. 22 S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3i2tJ95n/EuOPSleOmFtGQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25-111»oa/2n23 Kand. 22 12/12/2132: 12:55-Au mun mmuum mean mun m xum LLIMPIIR mum wluvm pznszxurum «mu LUMPUR, uALAvsIA ummum KuAsM(uAsA Kms) monomm uN1'u mm xznm may 1 1—(MI2o2:l mam perxam sura|~surax mp-aa mm. mm, Axzal :. Co ¢m.w.m. Aaushan Hsamtevfinma emu Calm) mm Fcndnlur Mmu pad: 3012023‘ 202 znza am. 17 3 202: mu Da\ampem:n4m,5,a,I11IJ.12(3m21 ream stew Senarav Parsekutuan Gan Pzrkavi 1 sanarax Negen Penemnagaan Furs-kmuan DAN nawam perkara Akin Penmdbrun unuana— umang mam (Ww\ayah—Ws\ayah Felsekutuanj um khususnya seksyen 2 din Bxhagmn IX, um Dalam Denara kevulusan Soon Slngh aw saw» v Panubun-n Kubxmkun mum Munaymau-m<\Mp»<eaam.Amm9w}2 cus DAN Dalarn pemam perenggan 1 hagl Jadual mm Aku Mahkamah Kahaluman 1954 Amvan 53 Kzecanxaeaan Mahkamah 2on2 nan seksyen M ma my spesmx 1950 a. mu sm zuzunsn/Euowsw-omrxsu «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! nnuu msmm usnmsn sous sum come no. KIP: u1o7w1:H:onn .. wzuonou mu 1. PENDAFVAR IIUALLAF wnuvm PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR 2. uuuus meluu nsuu wnuvm PERSEKLIYUAM 3. xsmuuu muvsu .. nzsvounauasspounsu Judgment Imvouucuon 1 The Apphcanl on 20421123 med an apphcalxcn man weave be granted |c In: Apphclnl underOrder53 Rule 3 allhe Rules av own 2012 (Rec) (0 apmy for aJudic1alIevIew(Enc|oIur1 1) 2. The Apphcanlseeks me lollowmg relnels V (a) A declaralwun me: me Admwslmluon a1 1s1am1c Law (Federa\ Temtones) Acl 19931»: 505) gwss an |mp\|et1]uns/:11cI1on lo me 1-‘ Respondent lo aware max at persnn Is no longer a Mushm. (D) A declavauan max semen 91 0! Act sas 1s uncon5(1Iu|inna\ because it 15 1ncons1s1em wvlh Ann:\e 1111; at the Federal consmuucn (rs) and ahemalwely, a aemaratmn that seem" 91 c1A4:(5D51smouns1stenlw1Ihltem1 of H19 Slate L1s|o1 me FC1 but 2 :1 11 m zuzuvsu/Euuwsw-Dmnsaz «mm. s.1.1...m.m111... .1... w my 1... WW1-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum M1 nmnmn um smc. mum on connrsmn In lilam mm um: um pmanzuon at me syamn mm, by nmpocauon, eonmsnon am at Mam snaum mo mu undv (ht yunmmunu M um um- nouns. mm‘ nu appollinfs appllcnlion «or x dncllrllion Ina! m mu nu nanwu um-um cum within an luvbldlcllsn mm mm: com and m mm mm. gr. Conn (see pp son, 6 and 5033), um cm Sang V Pengatah Jnbalnn Agamu mam man Fmang uses] 3 cu 2:: not VoHuwed' “xx cannot bmspm-a munna Syanih coundenvas us ..m..m.:uan undar a 5131:: law enacted nuviuan| m an 7M2) on me Cnnslmmon ioflovnng Dav: w. Stats Usl of me Nmm scnaamu ov me Ccnsnlunon am m me case 04 he Federal tam-ones by vmue av Hem 6[e7 mean us: Thus on a manev rammg m canversmn |e mm, au sum Enacbnems and me An axprnssly vexl lhe Sya-nah Cami wnsmclnn tn dual wllh lhe mailer see, lav example 5:13? mu‘ m mime Kedzh Eruactmenl Part IX us: was; M In Aamxnmu mu at mm: Law (Fsaerav Temlonus) an 1993, and Fan vm 455 17.39) me Psvwalvu Admvusvamn oi Mushm Law Enaclmenl use: Th: sechans arms In daal wan tapaaly. requwemenlsufa valid cunverson. regwslvsuan c-mfinale viocnvemcn and weogmlmn m s mm/ed a$ a Mushm u 5 mresung m nelz man 5 51 av [ha Fedem Temlunu Am nvvwdes that «mm (M momanl av m. cnnversmn, a wnven becomes subpea |u (he same dunes and omgamn as any nlhav Munlxm one reason we can mm M .5 met me delermnamn cl 2: Muslwm corwen 5 Imrwarsmn mil 0! man mvulves mmnnw mm m. mm o. y... vumarled remmcnaflan av Islam unusr lslamx: law m accordance mm uum Syarak (Dalvp Kam A. u.. m. uu iconvculon m llllm, cem nq rvmtnts must be comphud with unflu Hukum sunk (or . nonunion out an lnlnm is m valld. mm. anly an surinh courts an (M uwu ma appmpnatn m .a;..u.c.:.. n. mm. in dou sum mmum. um xincn mrflnrs an conversion m Islam mu ununrlhnlurin cn‘nn a: In syum. cnuvu. by implicnl .. comtrxion out of Islam should xlm can Imdur mu julisdlcllon of m. . .... may temphasxs added) 25 Vn Kamariah km Ali dan Lain-lam Iwn Knrnjnn Negeri Kelaman dan Sum Llgl [2094] 1 MLRA 52 ; [2004] 3 cm 409; 12410414 AMR 52?; [2005] \ MLJ 197‘ the Appellants made a slalulory declarahcn dedanng that lhey were no longerembraoed me religxon of Vslam m August 1995 They were senlenoed In Impnsonmem an 5 Omaha! 2000 (or laflure |o abvda by |he order of lhe Syanah Conn »..z 11 al u sm zuzunsn/Euowsw-omrxsu «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! or Appeal lelallng to me vflenoe under Urldang—Undang Majlls Agama Islam and Anal lslladal Melayu Kelanlan wnlcll lney had cnmmlued belora Augus| 1993. 25. The ISSUE before me noun was whemer me Appellants must be ulusllms wnan may were senlsnoea ln Ocmber zaoo Ahmad Falruz (2.1 (as he men was] held that ml. sepsllsnu um nmsulsnlmslly ucund rmn Ill: elllrglln IM sya calm um I: am my ad mm In Iutulury asclslsllon dtnlnlng may win nolonqn Imbnnlng lht religion M lsla l The noun al uaragraph 6 slalscl :3 «allows. ol Mamlamah mggl l(a|a Erlam pumnhunln porayu-plrlyu unluk ptnullyllharan ulnh dilolnk. MIIIIJIIIIH Ylnnul borpcndlnal hihiwl, mm. lalnnyl, penylbperiyu belunl disnhkzn murlld um. km vmndlu yang dlwllphn ohh znslmm. mlll. Agimn Islam flan Mallsu II M-Vlyu Kllinlan IWl(‘Enahlmen1I94')flin kn-In nu pUlIy|l~pOlIyu mull bung: . lillm Juuaru llu, perm/u»periyu aaalan menglknl Def ‘l21HN Nsnemsagasn FGISEKLAIIARH yang bemunyr Yhe nouns levelled lo 4|‘ Clause (1) shall have ns lllllsa-anon lfl ruplcl nlarly mallefwlllwu ms junsdlclrnn uflhn Syxnsh mulls lorukluk mm hmnng kull-I Mlhknmuh Sylvlnh dln kcl-Inn llu Msnlulnsll nnnai um lwlmpullrll hiding kins: umuk memulusklll p-rmononsn lnsnbul.” lempllasls added) 27 More lmponanlly ln Lina Joy lwn Ms Aganla Islam vlnlayal. Forsakntuan dan I rklain [2007] 4 MLJ 5:5; [zany 1 AMR 59:; [2001] : cm 551; [man 1 MLRA :59, ms Federal Cnufl have also held lrlal lhe CIVII Courl has no lllnsulcllon in mailers penalnlng la Syanah nlallsrs rrle Appellanl ln «ms case was born and brcugm up as a Mushm She applied lo Illa Nsllonsl Reglillallon Depamnenx lNRD)lora change ln ner name ls Llna Jay and la have me word “lslam' be vemoved from her laenllly cam llcl Her eppllcelmn was lejsclea on me ground ma: ll was lnamnplsla wllhnul lhe urderol me Syarlah Calm PI]! 11 sl 1| am :.zuss..lzsoesl.o.nnee “Nair s.n.l mmhnrwm s. UIQG a may l... lnsln.ll-y ml. dnuuvlml Vfl .nuna Wm! 2s The Issue before this cam was whemerthe NRDwas emmea in law |o mpose as a requ emern (or delehng me entry of Islam 171 me Appellanfs IC |hfl| she mus| produce a cemlwcale nr 3 dedarahon or an order «om ms Syanah Court that she had aposlanzsd The Federal com by mapmy held ma. '{6) mm wa no final ducislon Ihat fin Ipyulllnl had no long" prdnlsofl lslamllms‘ ma shIvme1\HhaL|heappe\Ianloun\d nn Vnngev beunderlhe .unsa.cuon olma Syanah om becnuse ma Syirmh Cmm had my Auusdxxmn an person: pvulessmg Vslam should ml be ampnama a:eor\1m\y nu way a union unnunud lmm . nliglolllllould be mammaacoonm ngnlliion wlaw or pachce dmrmlntd arxlipuliud by m nllglon nmu. nus appeflinlwzn ml pmvenled «mm mavrymg The Yreednm av mogmn undarlrt 1: 010113 Fsderm Czmslnulnn Iuzuvod (halting appellant comalued Mlll the mums nr waw cl ma lshmlc vammn ipacvfnmfly regirdmg mnunclahau cl 1». vehgwon cm the decision of m. u Inn of Islam had been eomnllnd and um nllnlnul Inlnmlc lulhorlly dmll hur Ipoluly um. nnly could ma Ippellanlnmhss cum ' nlly use {Jam 14) :7) Ton cast at Soon Singh cluvly shovau nu ma apusuay mnur val wlmln mu jurisulctlnn at the syum. Court. llem 1, Second usu mm» Slmeflwa 0! (he Faaarax Cnnsmmum xmwod mu mu Vsllmlc law was an ar me matters mat was m den 1 and men read mgamemm the nu olnahn xam mus u was uhvlaul mm: poluly mlnnrwn a malinr nllunq lo |s|:m llw Ind Iwas clur that n was wlmln ma Aurlsdbzuan nlliw $yulnh Caun ma dunln an n Mun Fldull Cwnalilulinn ma cwvl co-ms could not innrhn in nu; mum ma Dan 16) 19) n was cbarlhat m an n mere was usage am wards ngmtu mass and pracuca ma I-hgunn ma wo/vs has the num‘ was nanhmbm In ‘pvuress and .a\sn mama Kzmanah me Ah Mn Kermaan Negeri »<ax.nzaa, Mahysa 1200213 Mu 557 cm Omar ma Che Sch V Pubhc Prmecmur [was] 2 MN 55 fnfivwud Nam s nul awry a culreclmn av dogma and mums bul v1 .s also a mmmele way av Me compflswg 471 an was at human mwaaax ov pubhc, Van-II pohluixl. .aa..am.a mas». cmmmlanuflmalazrlrvnlsr Aruuwfven rezmngarLs11[I) 7A42)am1mem 4 m aawnd us: at In: mm Snbedwe Mme saaayax cansmmm n was obvmus that lsmm arming others mcmdsd at Vsvamnc law ma-, . Muslim lnkndl In nnouncl from mam, n. I: actually nxuclllny his nuhlx mum sylmh n... wnlnxt which hunownlunwflmcncn nlning In nputlzsya ma comma at the NR0 afficer was only to delumwll mat lhu apptH:nl wu no bnguv Vsllm I: smwwa m mm Nence. such um some nmbe sand to be mnuary -a an I1(1yMum|I:eH pmwdsl me mquwsmenl In mmpw Mm ms candmuns M the mHwnn belnre she had reommce Nam (:33 uava <7 2)‘ lemphasxs added) u... 1; am am aazuisn/Euowsw-omrxso «ma. san-1 nmhnrwm a. U... a may he nflmnlflly am. dnuamnl VI mum v-max 29 In Kalierrrnrel up sinrrasarny v. Majlll Aaama Islam vmayan Persekuzuan mum) &0rs [2010] 2 MLRA 355; mm] 2 cu 1&5; (20121: ML! 594 ms Appellarn rn Inns case We a val we 0! me deceased aaugnn a dedarauon that me deceased was a Hindu, vonowrng me custom and Hindu relrgmn oerdre ms death The Appeuanr a\so odnrended me: as me deceased was nm e Mushm on me date or his deem an |he dncuments cl corwersron M the deceased to me islamu: rehgxon were , The Issue bevore nus mun was wnemer zne learned Hrgn coun wage rred erred In drsrnrssrng me AnpeHan|'s applicahon (or e declarahon that me deceased was a Hmdu and not a Mushm upon me pmduciion emre order Mme Syanah Hrgrr Court. so. The AppeHant contended‘ mler aha, as lolluws (a) met by rnakrng Ihe orders as he did (he learned gudge had abrogated me powers or lhe civrl court la me syanan coun, (:2) mil wt was ner established mat me Syarrah Hrgr. ceun had wrxsdinron In rnrs ease bscauss .1 was not known whether [he derzased In INS case was 3 Mushm or not In |hB firs|p¥aos.and(c)1halIhe firs! Responderrlwes not a legal person and :15 appearance before me Syanah Hrgrr ceun was a HUHIIY 31 Abdm Wahab Pa|aH JCA (as he then was) hem max ‘[9] In our vww wnen dwrng eflea m an 12mA)me Nah cdun ahnmd firsl dedde M1eVreHlM1;unsdI:|\on Ia wrremer me rnaner nerere 4: rs a rnarrer rn resaeer er men runrdrcuon nu men wnlevrad an rne Syanah Own wnenrrer by sure ar redemr law |m1oneeme own Hwgh Cour! daemunes and deedes mar me mane-V rs wnhm rne Junsdlmon er the Synnah Coull, me am! Hrgh Court shomd rnen dechne Io aflmdumm runrreron me rnaner |1V]Tmswasn¥sar\ylh¢appmIcMakan um. reamed Hrgncdun pudgl rn Ims case Auer ssltlng Dal me case «or nne appeflam enenswexy and mg mam aurnenm my reamed judge Itonchsdefl «e an WHayan Pevsekumln llrdlpat perunlukan yang nyzla da\am Akla Panudbvnn Un¢ang—Undanq Is\am (Wr|:yah~ Wwlayah Persakuluan) rm (Akin sosy rnengerur Isn pemalukan -guru mam Eahlwln xx Am sas nrrnanu an drn In re».- pmsedur Dsmsiukan rsrarn 0\e« ru xudah lenlu mahkamah yang mampunym bmlng luau den kumpeusn unluk nenenruran apeape perkan yang urneundr dzlam ma ans sepem kesahin pamsiukan sasearang mu kg egrrna rauern adaran Mahkamah syanan dan bukan Mihkamah SMI W adaiah aeran dendan a... In or u sru :.zuas.uz..oesr.onnae “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm be u... a my r... unmnuuly mum: dnuamnl vn .nund war perkara 12: (VA) Perlembawaarr Fenekmuan yaw mempevunlukkan oanawa Mahkamah srrrr I-dak mempuryar bsdarrg kuasa berkaruan dlngan apa—apa perkam dr mans Mankamah Syanah mempunyaw hrdang kuzui yang mbenkan dr lmwlh urrdarrgamdarrg befluivs re saya Jugn bavpendlpat bahawa wlllupun pcmohan melaluf affldlvlk-afid-ml yang dllallkin cub: mnmlnluklun hlluwl u rrrau danarrr lnmpoh ynng dllullkan u man Man nwmtluk agar... mam, mar. rrramrrrnu bahlvlln dmrrr dpacara kugamnn mrrdu. din mlllkukln pmara yum oarrarrmrgarr duloln Igumn marrr IIIH udnk rrr llkuknn perkam s. m yang upalumya dllakukan em. onnq Isl in. map: pm. nun «mum -dlllh pmoararr rrrarran an undafli-undlng kllm. smur lag: hiding km. unmk mlncllllllun pulkafl-vwkan eapmr nu adanarr Mahkzmah warren aarr mm Mlhklm-II Swll n carrarrrry unml be am the appauanr has mud in say, mar uy acme mradgrr that nmoess and emdmg mat he had no rurrsdrarorr In mailers rerarrrrg m we oaaaaseds slams as a Mulhm. me man Conn had aorogared as wars to me Syanah CDLAI1‘ (errrnhasrs added) 32. In H] Ralml bin Abdullah v. sm Hasrrarr varrgararrra In Ahdunavr arrd anmllo uppnl [2014] 3 MLRA 0731201414 CLJ 253; [mu] : MLJ 757, e Respondents (‘me plamm‘) lather nad convened to rslarrr mgether wrrrr ms we and five crmdren, rrruudrrrg me Puarnrrm who was (hen one year and «mad rrrorrcrrs old In «gas. The srarurdry declaranon was amrmed by her parents and me oorwersrorr was regrsrered wrm Maura Agama lsham dan Adel Resam Malaya Pahang A Demficale oi corwersron was sums-zuermy rasued |u Plamhffs parems but me Plalnhfl and rrer srmrrrgs‘ cemflcales were never rssued unlll was 33 In 2009‘ me Plamllfl commenced an acuorr agams| me Ddendanls m ore Hugh Courl, rmer aha, «or me dec\ara|vons and orders man are Ddendanls had wrurrgruny and umawfuuy sumscled me Flalnhfi to undergo a rellgmus oonversrorr proeess at me age or seven years om, me Sm/Akualv Masuk /slam dated 25 December was execmed by me marrrm was rrrewecuve, null and vmd ab mum‘ and max me Dxreclov General dune Nauana\ Regisrrauorr Deparzrrrem rs ordered and dneded to Immedlalmy vake aH me necasary azmons to ready ms record aaaur me P\am(\N. by rernsnaurrg me P\am|iWs ongmal r.r. 15 al I: am arzunsrr/Euowsw-orrrnsu “Nana s.r.r nanhnrwm r. d... a may r... nflmruflly am. dnuamnl VI mum p-ms! lndlan name ln me Plalnms ldermfy card and lo delele lne word Islam‘. 34 Her applrcallon was struck oul al lne Hlgn oourl but was allawed al me com 04 Appeal The Cowl ol Appeal, ln ellowlng Plalnulrs appeal. ordered me Plelnulrs englnalrng summons be convened lo a wnl and drrecled lhe mener be reverled lo me Hldn courl lo be med as The lssues mar erase for me peuns dalermlrlallan rn we appeal were whether Ihe Clvll or Syanah Court had the lunsdlcllan |o delermlne whelher a person prolessed Islam or no!‘ and whal were the matters thal {Ell wllhln Ihe lurlsdlcllan ohhe Syariah Coul1.Anl‘lrl Zakarla CJ [as he men was) neld that “Amcle 121 el lne Federal Corlslllumrl (me cpnslllpmnl clearly pmvlflsdmallheclvll court shall have nluunsdlcllanunany mallerlallmg Wllhm ms junsdrnlon or me snmn coon Yhe Mallets um rell Wllhln me lunsdn:|lnrl dune snanen Colmwere as pmvlded underln u pnne Ccnslllmlan lrllav ill: rnener. Ialhng wnnln lhe Stale Llsl ll! rne Nrnln senedule men were Vslamlc law, personal and lennly law at person pmlesslrlg lne lehglon ol lslen. Wlnnlav n plrwn was a Mrullrn or no: was a rnemr ralllnp under me Ixclu jumdmrdn or an. snarlen conn. ll would bu hlgrlly lnapproprlm lor me clv mun, whlch lack: Jutildirlinn nvnuanl lo In lzl rp dalaml - me vnlidny 04 me eemerslen ol any nlflnll In me Ilglnn 01 Islam is nlluioln lulu. Thanion me llinn en ru- plalnlflfs Izevlv-niml lrr ms: fell wlmln the mlusm ilnvisdicion 01 am Shnvlah counleee Dams 16.18 27 a soy lemphasls added] 36. ln Syulfah Nooralfiyua pl wen npsen v. Dimctor of Jabalan Agamn Isllm Sarawak A Ors [mm a MLRA 345; [mm 2 ssuz an 201:]: MLJ 354 me Appellanl had M1 me rehglorl pl lslarn and embraced Chrlsllanlly She allerward wenl lo the Nallonel Reglslrallon Deparlmenl (NRD) lo apply lor a change ol her name VI ner NRIC oul NRD Inlnrmed her that aha ned to ml 0b|aln me lener pl release lrom Islam {mm llne Flrsl Respendenl The Appellanl leler wenl lo |he Flrsl Respondenrs omoe and rnel one uelazen Harlisah who lnlprrned ner lhalshs had lo gnlolha syanen coun and allerld eounsellng sesslarls as an adherence procedure lo renounce Islam oul (he sand melons never nlalenahsed. r... 16 at 1: srn lduisn/Euofisl-DMFKGD “Nana s.n.l narlhnrwm .. UIQG e may r... prwlruflly mm. mmn VI .nuna vtmxl 37 The Appellant afterward applied (or leave re move rrmrereu revrew agarrrsc me Respondems lorthe loHcwmg rehe(s‘ (3) a declaralmn (ha! she was a CVWISUEFI‘ (B) an order 0! mandamus to comps! ma Frrsland/or Second Respondsmls to xssue he said Vallev. and Is) an order 0! mandamus Io comps! me mm Resperrdern to change me Appeflanfs name lrom Syinfah Naoraflyua nu Wan Hosen Io Vanessa Elizabeth. The learned trial wdge dlsmvssad me Appellanfs apphcalran The Issue before this appeal was whether he Sarawak Syariah High Court has junsdlchon (a deal wllh Ihe queslron of anas|asy as The Courl 0! Appeal spaakmg mreugn zawewr 5aHeh JCA (as he men was) new mat: "Sham: Conn: arra mu cmml vorrrran Iva: up-ran I-can Iylnm The xrmrprenanon urn: nfltctnd an slate M the law today was that an Sluriih Cum arm no! an em: mm had mu uclullvu iurilditmon lo ma: nilh ma Inc of cermnrarr our of Iillm. In ad um, our mail cnurl nan conslslenuy arm mpulzdly hold mat [urinal n M ma snarran caun «gamma Ipaluly um: nm in Ixpusily lam mu m are sum laws. me own was sarrsrrea me: me raarm mar pudga did nalevved In raw m hulflmg lhal ma mg» Conn Md nn rurrsarcuurr to near aposlzsy mailers (see pavas 25. 31. 3547 3. sxn“ In mu wlw ma Inllrpvvlnllnnlhu nlnch ma lulu um. um may I: mat me Syaviah Conn and not the clvll cmm has ms lulisdvclinn In an: wllh Inn Inna olconnr Inn uIuo1IIIIIl\.Yha ounihlulzonal and rurrsaremrrar Issues as re Mwelhlrllm Syanah Cowl rras rurrsarcmrr to near mm are auasuorrs er aposlasy was earned by Mcmamnd ozaraarrr rm (5: he mun wan m me case er Sean Smgh en arur Smgh v Pevlubuhan xenarrkan Vsmm Mahysxa wammy Kedah rlulmar [1999] 1 MLJ as Maerem NI: Lmusmn an n um um xrrmae mm at mnllun err emwlnlan to mam eerrrs under ma luflsdltlmn mm. Sylriah Count. by mrpncaumr cermrarerr nulnllslam should ansomu undlrlhn juvil on em. same town. The mun al paragriph 39 concmdsd mar “F01 Ilu lorugolnn muons‘ wt ..r.. wins an cnnclullan of mu rurrraaruaan mauhn an-u.r.v. application for rm. to movl rer mrarar rlviiw against ma Iespundents oughtla es audu mm em sm zuzunsn/Euofiswaomrxsu “Nana s.r.r lunharwm .. H... e may r... nflmnaflly em. dnuamnl vn aF\uNa WM ms mllkv is wmun me exclusivl iuvisducfinn of Syanah Own am: no: um um: man Conn.‘ (emphasws added) 39 The Federal coun m Re a m Ibrahim v Koruiun Nsgm Selzngor & Annr [2021] 2 MLRA 7a; (2021) 3 CLJ so , [2n21)2 MLJ can have also new lha| m a matter wnaermng vsnunclahan ol Vslams the junsdwdwon hes in the Syansh own. In llvs case. the High Conn lmmd max me Appeflanfs mother and her pulalnle father were married, and that "'1: Appellant was a child 0! me mamage. The Hwgh Courl also lound mat the vahdxly uflhevmamage (ell wxlmn the yunsdmlon ov me syanan Cnurl and cm-sequenuy‘ one queshon ol whemer (he Appellant was no longer a Mushm also (ell wllhln lhe Syanah Conn‘: nmsditmcn an The coun av Appea\ msnusssu me Appsflanls apnea! and held that me Appauam is a Muslim and me efiecl wne declaration song?“ by me Appellam was In enams her In renounce ‘slam as her rehgwon that vn swam amoun|ed |o a declarahon mat ma AapeHant Vs no longer a Musmn The ouun av Apnea‘ went on to new lhal the .unsm n \s mus vested mn me syanan cum and not me am: mun The cam 0! Appeal held mat accardmg |a :1 (M) o1Amcle 121 cnne FC, me Aweflant 5 avenue «crane declarahon sought was w|(mnIheJurIsd1c|I0n 0! ma syanan Courl and not me cm! coun. 41 The wssue vn lhvs case S where the sublecl rnaner of a cause Or mailer requires s delemuna|Iun of wnerner a pevson /s or IS 1101 a Muslim under the law tamer Ihan ‘whether 5 person ya no Iongev a Muslrm, whether the High Ooun has the exchmve Aurlsdlfllarl lo hear and determine the sad subject matter on a proper mleruretalion of Arum: I21 and llem 1 of the Slate List of me Federal CDVlS|i\U|\0FI 42 Tengku Mamuun CJ held :na| ‘The civil mulls had D1: mnsaumn to aexenmne me s1an.s 0! persons mo clams they were new: Mmumx u apprised to no hnger Musmns 4n me tanner, me queslmn was vmelher a raerson ms‘ m the rm mane nne vim nmhuad ma human of Islam Ilwas n uuesuan regardmgona 5 Ieanmy under nn. Fedura\ Consmubon Much m mm nscsmam ounsmuhonal mlerprelamn and msnavm ma cm: oouns we empowered. mdeed duty- bound, Ia .u.m.cm. nn. nutter avnn .1 mam warn mhgmu: mrmm-lmns an Imm mu nllylon 51 Illlm, Inc mnuuwu nnluulvulywllhlu ms lurilflicmm ofmo s... u M 1: sm zuzuisn/Euovsw-ounnso «mu. sum nmhnrwm .. met! a mm s. anmnnuly mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! 43. 44 45 as 47. syarian Court: by vlmn at m mm) of nu FI HI Conihwllofl (nu paras nu, ma 1. mm " (emphasrs added) I! 15 «me that hy wnue olAmc\e 121(1AjaHhe FC, Civil Cnufls shall have no junsdvclion in respea 01 any matter mm" |he;urisdAL1ion of ms Syanah CDUNS Back to me crux xssue of |hIs pvesenl case. lhe Appucanc, being a Muswu. Is seeking to Ienounue herlanh «om the rehgxan of Islam to Chrwsflanvly Tharefora‘ ll Is my view (hat wt us (he Syariah Cuurl “Val nan gme herlhe order my herapplucahon to renounce \s\am She wxll have In go k) the syanan Cour! Io get we order as pvowded by me Vaw This \s N50 supported by the decwswon 0' nothing lass than |he Federal com and other cases med abuve1ha|SyarIah couns wm have msaucuon ovev cases Involving renunclalmn of Islam The Civil caun m mus case has no iunsdxclmn to delerrmne arm to decide on me Aopncanrs applmnion |a rennunce Is\am as w! (ans wvlhln the .unsmcnan at lhe Syanah couns The Syanah cows have me power to hear the Applu-ants case under secmn 46(2) (h) (x) at Acl 505 which provides’ -(2; A Syarhah Han Qzun mm. (:27 m n. cml Aurvsduclvum bur infl dellrmmn an muons Ind pmosadmgl .n wmm an me Dimes are Muslims and mm Male In- m own mailers m vupscl arms» mnnmclmn acumen-ed byanywnmm law ~ Inlereslmgdy, the Applicant essentially contends that lhere VS no prior aexenmna n by me Syanah Conn on me sumect mailer 0! me Appnumen mm as sun me Apphcamn does nu| wow; rwewmg or re-h||gaung any deci n oflhe Syariah Oman and me Applucahon is not barred by Anide121(1A)oHhe Fe m. u n! 1| m zuzuisn/Euovsw-omrztso «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! 45 However‘ lnls Cmm -s onne vlaw lnal regardless alwllelnerlnere IS a prlcr aelerrnlnallon or declsxlrl by the Syarlah Court or mnerwlsa, once |he sublecl mauer lalls wilhlrl lna lurlsdlclion anne Syanah courll Anlsle l2l(lA) cf lne FC operates lo render lne suulecl rnauer and me syanan Courfs deaslon nul amenable lo ludlclal ravlew. 49 In me presenl case, me Applrcanl seeks to renounce lslarn hm does nol me a case at me Syarlah Conn It rs my View lhal alnea renurlclallon of Islam lalls wllnln Iha junsdlctlan uflhe syarlan courll by ulnue or Anlcle l2l(lA) allne FC. lrns Honourable Courl nas no lurlsnlcllurl over lne Appllcalws appllcallorl |o renounce Islam and lhe sald appllcalran should be neard and uelerrnlnea by me Syanah courl. “Pmllsslng (III Re men at Islam" 50. The Appllcant esselltlally l>on|ends Ihal Ihe Syarlah Calm has no Juflsdlmlon over me Appllcanl because me Appllcam ls no longer a persnn who profiesses lslarrl al present and as such. is not a “persons pmlesslng lne rellglon cl Islam‘ as pruvlded VI llern 1 ol me Slam Llsl 09 I119 FC. 51. It IS to be nuled lhal as a person who has convened to lslam. me Appllcarfl falls under me defirlllian ol Muslim under Sedlcn 2mm of Au 505 which nroulaes as follows‘ '2 ul In rm Acl, unless lne eamaxl ulherwln raqurrse "Mu:I|m" lmlnv (errlprlasls added! 52 Funher, as a person who has mnvenee lo Islam and has been reglslered I?‘ ma Reglsler or Muallals, lne Appllcanl shall be lrealea as a Musllm car the purposes of any Federal or Slate law and tar all r... m M :- rn :.ms..rs..onsl.o.nnaa “Nana Smnl luvlhnrwlll r. u... u my r... nflnlnnllly mm. dnuavlml vn nFluNa ml (0) A dedaralinn that secnon 850) at Act 505 \s unconsmmmnav because .1 Is wnccnsxslenl mm Item 1 or the Slate Lust onne FC and oonsaquenlly. a declarauon (ha| me derm-nan of Mushm secuon 2(d) al Am 505 is unwns|mmonil: (<1) A ueclarauon max me defimllon or Mushm m Sscllun 2(a) oi Act 505 us uneanslrtutionefl because v| vs inmnsIsIen| wwh Item 1 at the Slate Lvsl of me FC: (3) A uaclarauon mat pmsuam to Amcle 11(1) of Ihe FC. me Appucam has a ngm to pmless and pracuae me rehglon cl her cnmoe. 11) An order or mandamus lhal |he 1" Respondent rnusl conswder the Apphcanfs apphcalmn lor her name to be canoefled from the Regxsler at Muaflals, and make a decision Immedxaleiy; and (9) A declarauon that me ve1usa\ and/or delay of me 1" Rasponaem to deada ma Apphcanls avpllcahon m we lellers dated 301.2023, 2022023 and 17.3 2023 Is Irra|rona\ and unreasonable. 3 \n me apnncauon, iha Applucam assennauy seeks leave for judwcval revuew xa chauenge me alleged mmssmn on me pan of me 1“ Respondent In demde on her appncanon m renaunue Islam 4. Am the heanng, I dismissed me Appncanrs appncamn in Enclosure 1 and wwll now set out me grounds lor my pmgmenl aackgrauna Facts 5 The backgmuna casts of mis case are large\y undlspulw and can be summanxed as loHows — 1a) The Apphcant was born on 9 7 199710 Chnsllan parents and was bapused by her parents on 25 H998: mum- m zuzuisn/Euowsw-omrxsu «mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! hme Tms vs expressly pmwdea by Sscllon 91(1) cf Act 505 as vonows » 91 11) A punch who has nonvtmd 1: mm nu: ma bun rigixhrnn m an Rnglsnv al Mulflnk null. my the punwsu of my mm: sat sun I.-4. ma lwrnll mm, in lvultd u a mum...- (empnass added) 53. In Roslim lhra m lsupm), 1! was held byme Federal Coumhal — 15:: Nude um Mlhe rc gunranlus m. nghl to Dmless am placuoe one'5 rekglan The comuncflon ‘and m an um suggests Ina! w gavems man man we mvfessmg n exlends m mm mm mmmu mm: or how one may be -aammm wnh a specmc rehgwn and me nghl m a\se delermma mm . own laval ac n-man In ms or Mr ms: mmm. Item 1 of me sum list singularly u Is was won “pvMessInu". Cnnlrullngln.II(1)wlIhlIAm1a1|In sun. Lm, Ills pllln ammu- Ium was unllborahly mon nlrrwwly wumld In nxcludn nu requhemem at “nI'IClvcI' Thus. so new as an: Is a umsnm by Ian on m..o..r n. pruclln - at not. or whclhvr M nnnlhmc In bclleve In the mm o. nol. n no I u ltually vdunufiod as ->9...” pmhnlng mu uflglnn M ism...“ (ernphasxs added) 54 Added to ma lhe Appncam cannot \mv|aleraHy on her awn acwrd renounce me rengmn of Vslam wnelher mmnsmsuy or exlnnsxcally The Fsdarm Com m Roslln nmmm (supra; new as Iollows. - -my Admlnlxlnllv Iy, um um Mwmvs . Musllm. and becomes ‘unuircllan mm Syaflah owns. an. moctdun In M rellglnn also mama subiuctho hlamlc law [83] Summlnsmu theabwe, one Izannnl unl Ihrllly on his own sword rlnsun IM ullqlul ol Ilium may to wmlld Amnunl to .n olhnul mm: on precepcs of lslnm. In such m msunca. mo symn Court would um bow. Jnrimlcmms nun»: person: and m In nmuviu “ (empnams added) 55. Therelore. u rs dear mat me Syanah Courl has Junsdlcllon over me Apphcanl and me App\ican\‘s ::un|snIAon ‘s cleafly uevmd a! mem. u... u M :- sm zuzunsn/Euowsw-omrxsu «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Mandamus 56 57 55 59. The Apvhcanl framed the Appl-canon as a chalienga againsi me aiieged omission on me pan or the 1“ Respondent to decide me Appiicanra apphcalmn to renounce Islam. In essence. (a) Ina Appiicani canisnds that me 1“ Respondent has the Imphed Iunsdichan lo near an apphcaunn to renounce Islam: (:7) Ina Appllnt contends Inai me I“ Respondenrs ielusai and/or delay In decrding Ina Appiicanis applicaunn In renounce Isiani amaunis In an ornissinn, and Ia) ma Appiicani seeks lo oovain mandamus as a raiiai Ior Ihe alieged omission an lhe pan ullhe 1*‘ Respondeni II is In be naiad Inai Ine courfs junsdlcliori to grant an order 0! mandamus is based on saaiion 25(2I onne coun ofJudIca\ure Ad 1964 (c.IA), Paragraph I oi Ina scneduie \u the CJA and semen 44(I) in me Specific Rehel Act 195U(5RA) The Federal com in Minister o1i=inann, Gav-rnmontofsahah v. P-Irojaan sun and pond] A uII.I M1: [2003] 5 CLJ 321; [2003] 1 MLRA 705. naid lhal an order at rnaridamus can be granisd eiiner: Ia) under saciran M of me SKA‘ or (D) Ina addmanai powers ollhe High court provided by paragrapn 1 guns schedule In the CJA. Furthermore. Drder53 Rule 1(2) oi Ina ROG provides Lhal |hIs Order (0, 53) I1 subieci Io Ina provisions ai Chiphr VIII or Part 2 oi |he SRA. Therefore. any appiicanon lor an arder M mandamus made by way of judicial review proceedings musi mmply wi\h the requirement oi sacnon 44 at me SRA. Pagenalll rn ziazuisn/Euofisi-omrisu «mu s.n.I Iuvihnrwm .. UIQG u my me nflmnlflly MIMI m.n.n VI mum Wm! 51 secuon 44 of me SRA reads as lo\Iows' ‘ENFORCEMENT or pursue nunzs Povnno enser MIMI: my-nu ma mm In ae emenn meme em 44. (1) Amdge may make an order Isqmnng any specmc au to be done nv lomuma. by my person hmdmg . punnc oifiae Mtether M a pevmamnt ov a temporary name. or by any camaranon or any mun snburdmnlam rne Hwgh Conn Pm»/med mm- (3) an apphcalmn lnr such an aruer be made by some person wmse pmpenyy rrnnanse or pamwlm ngm would be Vnpwea ny rna vorbaanna urdmnu as me case may be Mme sawd specific an, rm such doing nr lomunng Vs, under any law «er rne rnna being m lama. daafly mnnaanr on ma persnn av noun In msor M vubhc snaracnar or on me cemornmn m M: wmnme chavaclsv m n rne opmwn er rne mg. rn. dnmg nr remeanng vs aenwnanr m um and msnce: my me appncnm has no mnar spam and adequate Vegal remedy anu (ey rne remedy given by me order zpphed lnr wnu be mmptelz (27 Nolmng rn ms seclmn snan be deemed tn aumonze a mask (37 m make any order mndmn en Ihe Vang dn-Pamlan Ngong rm re m ny mum on any servant or any Gavnmmem xn Mi‘-aysx as such, merely in antarca ma salrsfadmn 01 a dam: upon the soyarnnrenr, or 4:; re mnke any am-rvmch rs ulberwwse expressly excmdea by nny Vlw our the runs bemg In lame" 62 In Koorr Hol cnuw v. Pm-rn slngn [1s12]1 MLJ nob; [I312] I MLRH 497. snarma J (as he then was) had oulhnsd four prereqursnas essennal to me Issue at an order under section 44 of me SRA ar M e mandamus: up wnemer the Appficanl nas a clear and specxflc legal ngm to me raner sought, Pu: rs M 2: sm :.zuns.yz..onsr.o.nnaa “Nana snnnw lunhnrwm rs. med a my n. mmnuflly mum: flnuamnl VI nruma v-max (n) wnennernnere ns a ouny nrnposao by nawon Lhe1“Re§pn)ndent. Whether such duty ns of an nmperatwe minisnernzfl chan'az:|er nnvonvnng no nuogmenn or discrennon on the pan oi the 1" Respandenl: and 1w) wnanner nne Apphcam has any remedy‘ omen man by way of mandamus, non nne enlantemenl cl nha ngm wnnon nas been demed no mm as Based on «no case‘ m order no Issue no me order on mandamus nne Ayplncam nnusn snow non onny nnan she has a negan ngnn no nave me am panonmeo hm man me right nnnnsn be so dear‘ specnfic ano wen: oenneo as no oa vree nmn any reasonable eonnroversy. The oroer cannon be issued wnen me ngm vs doubflul, or Is a ooanmao one or where It depends upon an nssue af nacn no he oenerrnnnenn by me 1“ Respnndenl The more no snow me exns|enoe on any legal nghl na oonnpen nrne performance of a vegan duly casn upon ans 1“ Responaenn wnn deny «ha oroer on mandamus. 54 In vnew onnsaoave, nn vs cnearnnan one oHhe condnlnons laran onnar onnnanoarnus no be nssued ns nne exnslenue ova duty Imposed bylaw an nne 1- Responoenn. The Court can aummanfl nne 1" Responoenn no dc nnan of wmcn K was his clear Iegan duly no do so. as nn absence an such negar duly, mandamus snnnn non he sgannsn me I“Respom1enI Hind snnppurnior my vnew by rsfemng no me Court of Appeal case of Peguam Mogara Malaysia v. D! unncman Jo Ikunurnavn ][2D12]1MLRAI57' 2o11ncL.nu5:[znn2] n MLJ 179 wnere was held as1o\lows.— ‘[30] nn nns nnenann apponn nna unsburxnmvnl on ma annmnon I5 entrusted no me as anonar nn. dnreclov who wumd wnsnuer each anpnnznon m acccndanue wnn me guuiehnas nor nnan vmvnse Tm: lnvoml In In on dilcnllun new on . aunnnuu and nompnhenslve mm: M mnnnauon. rm as minor nn. anuauu II nnl mnunmn no nppmn III And snnnary apnllcillanl nn nn. lllnclllnn. rm uspofldlnt mun lmn inm Illa, Ihilmeve Is a legnl antnulmy duly nnlhl pmoa on. ma nnanar nn. nnnmaa: . . nnnnm 91 mm In arm nu; ma awucauon rm rnspondunk nnm ullhlixh mu exlsmnvl of . auny M a puhll: name. me peflolvnanne of which Impoullvv und nu! avtionll M .1 an my rm p... 1: cl 21 em anzunsn/Ennowsn-omrnsnz “Nana snnnn luvnhnrwm .. met! a may n... onmnnmy mm: dnuamnl VI nrnnma v-man respondevnl has mind to do in. ma nollu oi mnllrm is clnriy pnmlud an me new and/wlhn dimclurx aimwun In lpwvvv Ind uimm. fumll‘. mm II no! u. ion at law mu in. no and/orthe fllredor muslda an.” (emphasis added! so Further. in me case av Karpnl Slngh Rxm Slngli V. Kolua Hakim Nogarl mm 1 MLRH :3; 120111 4 cu in the Appiicarfl applied, inter aha, '0! an order 0! mandamus in issue against the Raspondeni, direcling the Respondent to respond to (he Applicanfs requesl vide ihe Apphcanfs Valle! Salad 1 December 2010‘ ihal We Resunnderil recuse mmsen imm determining me mums oi a compiami by me Apphcant against Ihe Respondent under Section 13 of lhe Judges Code 05 Elma 2009. The Attorney Geneval, in obiaairig to the leave of the iudiciai review BDDIICSHOH, relied in. among oihers, ihe gmund that ihe Respondeni does not have a iegai duty under Senior! 13 of the Judges‘ Code 0! Ethics 2009 ID vssporid in a manner as dIcie|ed by me Appiicani in us ielier Azian Ni J (as she men was) heid as (allows my nu Ammluy Gnmral suhmllslhnlundlr ;.umua) mm sum um lphlicanl mull um am in. nlpunflum an a may uuw undcr 55 :2 mi 13 oi mu Code. The Ailamey Genera! miss we care av Kean Ho» Chow V Pmlm Smghliupra) mam shamia J Said Pmvlso in) nequlras mm in. Going D! larbeailng musl be nleafly lncumbonl an m. p-um In nu puma chlrlcur um. mu-I In mm in. law same duly mi upon lilo public oflker. If he dues not flu um duly, mu. [in com will call upon him In poi-mm that duly. ii .5 submiliod mu 5 :2 aims Code mnler! Wwev an Inn cmuum. (0 receive any wmplaini zgainsl a iudge alieged in have committed a Dream oi me umvisiuri oi the Code semen 13 empoweqs we cmei Justice in daierm-he ms oampinmi. mupllfl with in. flucnlion at whexhev In aismiu lht compizmi. In reier ihe judge In a iribunal W In iaiei me mane: In In: Oommviiee under s u M me code It I. subminld um in. mm cwnplainlhas no mm. in may dismiss II. n In In -mama". pmvlllon nauvll mm It»: flllcrclionnry pwtlrs to an -n my maurwr prescflbed in 5. 1: icasmg Meridian Sun and V Daiuk Bandai Kuain Lumpui [2504] I cm 219; nimioue, s... 1.: Di 2: sm ziazuisn/Euofisi-omrisu “Nair mi ...m.mm .. UIQG m may he mm-y -mm: mm. VI .mm wrixi n is snhmlll-d mu moon u do“ n ’ pan duly on ma Cm-i Jnsuon no In in n manmr ammo by Ihe appllcanL us] mndnrn-u an on ounnoo only whm a llnzl dunyls Imposed an an mmnnly In MP Jam ‘Adrmmsluslwe Law or Muhysu and Smgapova av» eon or D9 352. esa n rs sumo m o-onror mandamus n n oommnno wslusd by no won Cuun ukmg an aomomy he nenorm n ouonc duly rmoonoo upun n by law Minfllnlus can be minted only Imln m . Ilgll duly ls Impound on In zuthnrilyn -no u om non p-nonn an. .n. M an Dulrunl has a Ieqar non: to compel me performance o ma ooonrc duly pvvlcnbed by law wrm can be onromo Inmunh mandamus is a duty at a on nllurl nu plrlmmnncu otwmch u lmpcr-Illvn mo nol npmanl or dlxcutwnary war: «no concemld aunuovily. Thus‘ at In omm has now, my»: Ihln - duly, nnu Ir in mm not on Ms onmr. mlndlmul so nnl Island In cornpul mm In oxcvclu nu wmr. AI cormcny submrued or comma! mmmg walcmng me! «or me Eur cooncrn me cooe does nor oronoe for a momoo or manner m deahng wllh . snoaoon where 5 oompunn rs made agams| me carer Juslwce Llkawvse as suhmmsd by the Altomsy aanmw. u, 12 no 1: or mu coo. on not Impose a new duly on me nspandtnl In no mo munnudlculid nymc aw -nu. vnmrm. lnlhl b: no. ollnv I our duty «rm 11 Impala! V: and no: upllanal or smnonary Vn num Impound upon an nlpunfllnl undar . . 1: no 1: M an. Code, mno mm on lppllclnl nu moo Io umsry nu cnndmon unfllr n umus) ov lilo an ms‘ Ims Vs runner orouno ro drsmrss mo apurlwalwan ror bemq rmonoos ‘ (empnasrs added) 57 In mo mstarfl case‘ n rs my vraw man me 15‘ Respondent nas no Junsdwctxcn In delermme me Applicants applmauon la renounce Is\am and xherelare, mere Is no regnx duty on me pan 0! me 1-! Respondenuo oecroe the Aoolrcanrs apphoanon to renounce |s\am As sucn mere rs no omxssmn wmcn can allracl the gram or mandamus ea Furmev, I find that there rs no smgle legs! provision nor Wags! precedam specrncany provide or nosa man we 1“ Respondenl has me ilmsdxcuan to near an apolrcanon Io ronounoo ‘slam Page 15 n! 1: sm :.zuosnrznopsr.o.nnm «wn. snrm nmhnrwm n. med n may n. nflmnnflly -mm: dnuamnl n. mum oornr 69 Conclu 70. 7|. 72 73 74 AH VI all, ll us my wew lhal me Aupllcanfs acllon I77 fvamlng me Appllcallon as a challenge agalllst me alleged Omlsslarl by me I“ Responderu 15 a lume allempl lo evade me apphcalmn ol Anlcla mlml cf lne FC aeanng -n mm mat ml an application var leave lo commence ludlclal (evlsw prooeedlngs under Ordev 53 01 me ROG, ll IS lrile lnal lne lesllor leave In commence mm ludlclal reulew be cumphed wllh Havlng wrlsldered me appllcallanl I am cl me oplmon that me sublecl maller of lnls appllcallon VS not amenable to ludlclal raview ln aaumon lo man, I also 1sllera|e lnal ma Apphcanl has lalled in snow an arguable case |a Dbtaln me order ol cerlloravl and mandamus al the subslanllve stage. The orders sougm by me Apphcarll are lnmlous ln na|ure ll ls my wrlsldered vlew thal me Ayphcant nas falled (0 cross the hurdle or the lualclal navlew lesl As dlsmssed above, me sumac: maner VI «ms case has been settled by law ll Is clear lnal lnere ls no arguanle case tar me Appllcanl Therelorel lhis applicalion lor leave {S lmolaus and ls not amenable in manual vevlew Thus. lnls apphcallon lor leave lo commence me lumual revlew prceesdlng (Endosure 1) ls dlsmlssec wlln cesls al RM:.ooo cc wllhuut lhe allocatar lee Dated. [ 3' December 2023 Ahmad Kamal hm Md. snama Judge Hlgn Ooun Kuala Lumlaur p... 2: m an m zlazunsn/Euowsl-omrlsn «we. Smnl ...n.mn .. med u may he mmu-y mum: flnuavlnnl VI muua Wm! Counslls Forlhe Avblicanl En Iqbal Hanlh Llang Tetuan Farm, Anal .1 Co Peguambela uan Peguamcsra No 15, Jalan PJU 7/16A. Muhara namansara. 47900 Puanmg Jaya‘ Se\angar Damn Ehsan um; Tuan 251 IIFAIH D) For the Honourable Allamey Genera!‘ Mohammad sanehuaam hm Ma Ah Fedem counsel, Jabavan Peguam Negara, Bahagnan Guaman‘ Na. 45‘ Perslaran Perdana. Presml 4 ezwu Pmrmaya MM 2. GI 11 m zuzuisn/Euovsw-omrzso «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! lb) The Applicant was valsed as a Chrlstlan by nar parents and was conflrrrled as a Chrlslian on 5 9.2013 when she was la years nldl (C) on laaznn, the Apphcarll convened la Islam and was reglslered as s Mdallal by me 1-‘ Raspcndeflh (d) on 27 l 2022. me Apnllcanl amnned a statutory decliralmn where she slaled mal sne wanted no renounce Islam and revert to Chrishanl (e) on 30.1.2023, lne Appllcant mmugh her sulicllor lssuea a lane: (0 me 1-‘ Raspendenl lo apply lo: her name to be cancelled fmm me Rsglsler of Muallafs (1) On 202 2023, me Appllcanl lnrdugn her Sohclmr issued a lenar lo lna 1“ Respondanx lo Dblaln ma lalasl slams nl her appllciflorll (gl on 17 3.2023. lne Appllcanl lhmugh her sdllulo: lssusd a Ietler(ome1’” Respondenl lo demand meme 1" Respondenl decide nerappllcauon wilmn 7 days [mm the dale onne lellerz and ln) As aflhe dale olfillng dune Apphcallorl, me I“ Respondenl nas not given any deClSlOH on her appllcallon The Law 6 The Federal coun In WRP Aala Pacific sdn Bhd v. Tunaga Nuiunll and mlz] 4 cu 413; [2012] 4 MLRA 257; mu) 4 MLJ 296 at 303‘ Speaklng lnruugh sunyadl Halim Omar FCJ (as he men was) held ~ Leave may be glamed me leave iflvllcalloll ls nallmuwhl ol as lmaldus and ll leave (5 granted‘ nn arguable case ln favmlrolgumlrlg ma lellstsoughl al the iuhslznlrve Ivanmlg may 122 ms result-rl\ outcome A rlder mdal be snacned lo lna applrcal.-on lmugn l6.|mIBSSV1E mailer Var .dd.a-an VE1lI5W>5 Imlnlbll ld pudlclal mvltw nblulmlly no means may be envunqud ‘ m zldzuisn/Euofisl-omrlsu “Nair Smnl luvlhnrwm a. UIQG a may he nflmnullly -mm: dnuavlnnl VI .nuna Wm! 7 The |esA \am down (or weave to commence a ]ud\c\a! Ievxew m WRF Asia Pacmc Sdn and (supra) are as louows‘ 0) wnemer the sunset mauer Vs amenalfle to Audvclal review, and «I so (H) «mm nne maIena\s avaflable. wnemer Ihe application us lmclcus and n nm enough: as (nvomus. consider man one applicant nes an arguaaxe case (a amam me rem suughl 5| the subscarmve neannq a me ennmplss guvemmg appucauans «or leave to commence wamax remew proceedmgs nave a\sc been se| cu! m Tang Kwor Ham 5. ors v. Fangulusan nananana Naslonal Ehd 5 ms unoel I MLRH sow; [2005] 1 cu an; man] 5 ML! an at on where Gupal sn Ram JCA (as he men was) held. [lo] we mgr: mun snauu ml an mlu mu mums or In: case al the Weave slage us Me vs omy In see u the apphmlmn «or leave ws lnvmous So 100 mu me mun n. unwed m ramse mm N .r Vs a case mere me subpcl nuusrue me mew ws one wmch by se1IIeo\aw(e\|herwnI\enlaw or me mmmun law) n non—1u5umab\e ' 9 It \s lnte mat the Applwcanl wvfl have to sallsly ms tests pmpounded m the abovemenuoned cases In older to secure me leave |o commence the Judlcwzfl revwew proceedings. A: we slager me oourl need nm go me me mems uune case nu: only «a see inne subject maner 15 amenams m judlc rewew or whether me appncauion for leave us Involous Pnllmlnlry Ohjocflonl (P0) 10. Durmg ms hearmg ov me appncauun, me learned Fedem oaunsel from me Auomey Geneva\'s Chambers (AGO) was present and rawsed a F0 The F0 was premvsed on me Iouawvng grounus V (at The ummace euznen maner ullhe Apphcahan \s not amenable |a wdlcwal rewew by virtue of Anide m11Am1nne FC, and (:2) The Appficanfs prayer far mandamus as names by me Apphcam is rrworous and vexauous as me 1' Ruspandent has Fag: s will sm zuzuisn/Euowsw-ornrxsn “Nana sen-1 ...n.mn be met! a may r... nVW‘Hl‘W -mm: dnunmnl VI mum v-max no legal duty to declde lhe Appllcarll s aupllcallon lo onnverl out of Islam. Tm dnclalon oi Ihe coun Tho sublncl mum Is not amunnhla lo judlclal mlow II The Appllcanl essenllally conlenas that based on me prayers lramad In one Aaplicallon. me subyscl matter cl ma Appllcallorl ls lhal ol oenslllullonal judlcial Vevlaw and slaluwry ludlclal revlew wman lalls mm-n lhe jurlsdlcllon ol lhls Honourable ooun. Therelore‘ ml: alinllcatlcrl IS not hand by Amcla 121(1A)oHh: FC 12 ms ooun lS ol me vlew in determlrllng me appllcallan of Arllcle 121(1A| nllhe FC, me approach lhal should be laken ls ma sumacl malter approach and rlollhe ‘remedy prayed lo: approach 13, l find support lor my vlew by relemng In me Federal Court case cl Majlil Ugaml Illlm Pullu Plnlng am Slhlrlng rml V. Sllllk Zolklmly Sh: n Natal .5 or; mos] 1 MLRA 25:; [2003] 3 ML! 705; [2003] 3 cl..l 2:9; [2nn:l) 4 MAR 50!. where ll was held as Vnlluws . ‘[18] In mm Shalk hm Md lmamm Abdul Hamld Mohamed J held Ihal me u l. mu nmnvn! hum um lu lcdon M II» Synrllh cuufl Iy amuse me plaimim haw priynd lor lhe remedy of anllnllons. Kl: Lmmup mu ml follow ls: Abdul Rahmnn am louama Scum Slllfih w -some mu ‘lllbjncl mamr nppmcn mm man an ‘rumudy prayed for‘ approach lzq W5 mpecumlly agvaa wllh mm Hanna Manamad J lhll Rzllmln cannot bu wppemd. m :.zuus.mopsl.o.msl: “Nair ml ...m.mm .. U... w my me mm-y mm: dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNa vlmxl [271 Wm re ed mu counouapu n nurvluw, mu lmothe samn nor x m mod ludnl In Llklnu mu nmody mm M upprvoch vnwnd aim: ‘subittl mum apwoacw " (emphasis added) 14. Funner, m mun mu Shalk Ismail 5 Anor v. Flnmah me Shaik Inmnll 5 Anor 12004] 2 MLJ 529: [2053] 1 MLRA 570; [2003] 4 CLJ 28!; [2002] 4 AMR «31.me Feaeral own new - 151 mg apgam has Agim 1.: a ma quesmn M mmmnn at me Syavuh Calm and the Hwgh Cowl n [M Syavinn mm nu ;un-aucunn our on mm», m. man Caun dons um um Jlmsdlcllon am n — .In mum M an mm: Connlllnlnn. ‘mu nu. fur mu duenninalinn 91 an aopmanh mu lhn coufl should an mum lnullujurlndlclhmodlln Sy-rl cum M ‘rm cowl has very reeenllydeuasd an we pom! m Mama ugama Islam Fulau Plnanw Gan Sebemng Ftrax u Shanklmkafivy Shmkh mum Orr mm] 1 MLRA 2334200313 MLJ ms.{2oo313 cu ass, [2003] 4 MAR 50! m our nu ma iubpnl mnltav wu Ihe ndmdscal-an mu admtmslrahon cl m wfll of a dsoeased Muslim. avsn maugn me 1a!pGlIdan|l(p|a\MV"5In In High Cour!) nae prayed lav mmeama cl . aeaaramn that me land m qu-shun be surrendered m the estate av Sham Euscl hm srmx Lam, deceased a mmmn max in: land m quesmn be VBIIEG upon me respondent: u ulcmovs at me ueuema: eslale and my an iuuwm and, m we ahemallve, me mspandtntl prayed ccmamnm and an vwncnon m HaxdarCJ1Ma\ay3)ldeuvennglhswagmenlelxm cmm) survsyed Ina eavlrer mdgmenls w W: com me Supreme Ce-m as wml av the Hun Court and wndudsd We resvecfiufly aqvse mm Abdul Hanna Mohamad J that ‘sex Abdul Rahman cannot m suppma {a} n mum be noted man 1;; Abdm Rahman' ws me vase av mm: Agama mm Fmau vmng Mn Wu Abdul Rahman dun s.IIu ylng hm mu: 1 MLRA 2m‘ [1292] 2 MLJ 244, M92} 1 cu (Rep) mm In um case‘ even mnugh me ‘and and mesqus m . us was : Nah!’ um, Ina sumemc cam new man svrme me ma! ordet asked Var hy the msponflenls was 2. pomamm Iruunchon Ia mm’. the appeuam or IL: mm: mm aamonsmng me sand mm. and to raslram me apnanann lmm caumg any pvehnunary flaps |u demoHsh um masque and areal a commemau nuuamq an m. us and imca me Syamn Cmml mu no| have guns man to wssue an wqunmon. merelm: ll-we mgr. mm had gunsdnclmn marine ml ms appmnch .. wnal has bezame Known us ‘me remedy avbvoam Seeantfly lm dacmun m Abdur Ham: v... 7 ms sm zuzuisn/Euovsw-ommsnz «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! Monerned J (as ne men was) Mensa to rn rne Amgmenl or Harder cu tmereynr mien lo tne case or Abdut snetx on no lhramm a. Ana! v Husstan hm lbramm at ors [1999] 5 ML! ms (HG) Much eoomed tne -subteotrnener opnreeen. [91 Tnereroro, mus calm nu put to rest mt nne sunteot manner nppvulch xnouto M nflephd. no; In rnrs mse mm It not oouor nneune suhjuclmnhrmlhl em vs rn. ouuoay cl in child. Yhnl o my um wlllun tn. luliudlcllon of me synnen coon. even Ieerne oeunset ror me eooeuents dud not dtspule rner NI Argumtntw ; Ihal Ilncl mo Syul-h Conn and no nmsdlcflun re Issuu the writ or names corpus. me civil cmm me (ha jurisdiction to Issue me sern. In nu. ea "In shorunlwnrw Ihll Iwumlnl rs mm lubcu curpul n In: rumdy Iouum and not me suhltct numr M tne ease [11] Since IM subjuvt rnamr in queslion is (ha custody of an enuo and um. tnat ts oteany -rmun nu jurildlcllon ofmo Syavlih ceun, oy vvflln :11 rm om n. of en tztmy or Inn Fndaral l:onIn'|nn'on. me Mlgh Court nae ne Junsdlcllon omtne nun-r" (empnesrs added) 15 Coming back to me veors tn tne present case. 1 em 04 me view mat even tnougn the prayers In me Apptrcatton are tamed to fit Lne prayers tor oonsmutronet and statutory tudtctal review, the ummale sublecl matter of me Appttcanon rs the Apotrcanrs apullcauun to convert out at tslem r e Ienunctatiun ol Istam. 16. In me present case. the subted meuer or me Applicallon ts tne Applreanrs appllcalton to renounce tstenr Tnrs Is evtdenl based on me tonowrng te) Tne Applroent oonvened la tstern on 13.5.2017 and ms regrstered as a Muattet by me 1" Respondent, and (bi The Apphcant emrrned the statutory oeoleretron on 27 t 2022 to renounoe tstern end revert Ia cnnetrenrty 17. However, tne Appticent dtd not me any epplrcanon VI the syerian court to vennunoe Istanr Instead, me Apphcam wrote to the I" Respondent In canoe: her name ham me Regrster of Muauets me - cl 11 em :.zues.venoesr.o.nrree “Nair e.n.r nmhnrwm rs. tn... e may r... oflmruflly mm: dnuumnl vn .nuva Wm! 15 Therefore, appwlng me -suh,sc1 maner approach’ as manhoned m (he shove amhuri S‘ I am of the oonsndeted View that the Appllcanfs upphcauan to renounce ls\am (EH5 wnlhrn the mnsdicllon Mme syanan Conn. The Syanah Conn has the wnsdncuon to hear and devennme me Applicants appncauon to renaunos Islam Thensiora, the ultimate suhjecl mmier of the Application is not amenable to wdwcxa! revwew by vmue of Ame‘: 1Z1(1A) Ifllhe FCV 19 Am::\e121 11A|a1lhe FC clearly aromas max mg on I Omms shall have no1urisdiCII'0r\ m naspacn many maner within the junsmcnan a! me Syanah Cuuns. It states as follows. “Judicial mm nun. Fudcmllou 121 (17TIeM snau be Iwo mun com ovoomnnaxe "mam" mm mm name\y— m an: m we States 01 Malaya. men shafl be kmwn as me Hugh own .n Mxlaya and snau nm vls unnavm mgmy a| such mace m the slats: ov Malaya as me Vang an Fenuan Agony may dmerrmne me my one m me Sula: cl Sabah and Sarawak Much shau be knuwn u lhe Man Conn u. s-ban and Sarawak Ind mu nave Ms Dnnmpal regslry ax such wave "1 ms States 01 smn nnd Surawak as the vm fl>~PerIu3n Ngung may delermmu. 1:1 Wevnavud). and such mlenmwunsax may be provided hylederal law. and me Hugh Downs mu vnlenurmum uuu hava such mnmnan ..-1 paw. .. mly be mmenea try at under (exists! wan um ‘nu cnum mama to In cu... I[1)IIInIIII n no lurlldlcvlon m respect at any nutter within the jurisdiction nl nu mum coun- (emphasis added) 20. There nave been many cases conoemmg Amde 121(1A) onna FC deemed by me owns In me last decades The Vaw remains mat the ow nouns shall hava no Jumdicuon In rtspecl M any matter wmnn me iurisdicfion of the Syanah Couns P:Le!ul1l sm zuzunsn/Euovsw-ounnso «mm. sm-w ...m.mn .. U... n may he nnnu-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! 21. The lollowrng cases would show me: matlers conoemlng Islamic maners. whlch Include renurlciallan ol Islam would lall under me lunsdlcllon ol me Syarlah court by vrnus olAnlcle 121(IA| ol the Fe. 22 In Dlllp Kant v. Ponuwll Polls on rah, asl-l Pulls nu-ran. sukll Munalam 5 AIIol[I9P2]1 MLJ1 l1991]1MLRA 301: [m1l1 cu (Rep) 77‘ me Anpellam sougnl a declaratlon lnal herdeoeased son al me me Mhls death was nn| s Musllm and/or had renounced ms lslsnm: lallh and «or me cnrlsequenllal declarallon lnal she was enlllled la me body olme deceased Mohamed vuscl SCJ las he men was) rn ms ludgmenl nrsnnanea as lalluws “The fonmnsl qunnon to be flehelnlinld is whlmrlhl dc and ma nnounm llnl flurlnu hll Imllnlc mu as only lonrrn qualllled taanswlrmn quullon ls ms swriah calm. ll would name Venxlbla to urrscr [he warns: mmmlulcmev In late! the mans: lo Ille chalrman ov lne larws mmmlnu unau s 37m cl ms Kedah Admlrllslvallnn av Muslrrn Law Enamnenr 1962 based anmelnlrls as lmmd ny the lenmid lmlclal comrnrrsrsnsn fol: rvhng ay ms cummlllna unasrs anal rnls ls: man-rwnlcn rs wrmrrr thelnllsdinllon Mme mu... cowl -nu nel no man Cuun._Furlrmr‘ . am» has bean overtaken sm superseded by me mnsmrmsnsl amsndmerll m an Izllmjolllue FedevaICan:|l|uI n‘ (emphasls added l 23 Further‘ rn Soon Singh all Blkar Singh v. Perluhuhan Kuhaiikan lslsm lllslaysla [PERKIIM Kn lh A Anor|1W9] 1 MLRA 115: [mm] 2 cL.l 5: mm 1 MLJ «la, the Appellant ln rms case was brought up as a srxn but had convened to Islam wllhoul lne knowledge and oansenl cl ms nmlner when he was sull a mlnnr. He men upon rsacmng 21 years of age, went through a blpllsm ceremony mm the slum failhr (hereby rsnouncrng lslsnr subsequenlly, ne men an orlglnallng summons seeklng a aeclsrslron that he was no lorlgar s Musllm. 24. The Federal cum also held mat in cases cl ocnverslorl oul cl lslamr me jurlsdlcllon lres ln lhe Syarlah Court. Mohd Dzalddln FCJ (as he men was) held Ihal --nu fludlcxlnll mm sysr vs court: In .1 Iwml cwwnnlonl our of mm -mmglr not expressly pmvl .1 car in lam! sm- Enscrrrr-nu. an In a Into mm -munsnu by lmnllntlan derived «on. rm pmv runs cnncurnlnn convelslan lnmlslam. II is »...mur sm zlszunsn/Euowsl-omrlsu “Nana s.nn nuvlhnrwm s. U... n may r... nflnlrullly -mm: mmn Vfl nFluNa Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

DA-12B-39-09/2022

PERAYU 1. ) MOHD FIRDAUS BIN MOHD AKHBAR 2. ) FARHANA HAZNIE BINTI MOHD ARIFFIN RESPONDEN 1. ) MUHAMMAD ASYRAF NAIM BIN ZULKIFLI 2. ) NOR ANGRAINI BINTI ZULKIFLI

RAYUAN SIVIL: Isu yang perlu diputuskan dalam kedua-dua rayuan berkenaan ialah sama ada gantirugi yang diberikan oleh L/HMS adalah adil, munsabah tidak rendah atau melampau dan dapat memampaskan Plaintif 2.

18/12/2023

YA Dato' Roslan Bin Abu Bakar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=594312ce-c908-4545-ac3c-2962b840a3b2&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - DA-12B-39-09-2022 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: DA-12B-39-09/2022 ANTARA FARHANA HAZNIE BINTI MOHD ARIFFIN … PERAYU DAN 1) MUHAMMAD ASYRAF NAIM BIN ZULKIFLI 2) NOR ANGRAINI BINTI ZULKIFLI … RESPONDEN & DA-12B-40-09/2022 1) MUHAMMAD ASYRAF NAIM BIN ZULKIFLI 2) NOR ANGRAINI BINTI ZULKIFLI … PERAYU DAN 1) MOHD FIRDAUS BIN MOHD AKHIR 2) FARHANA HAZNIE BINTI MOHD ARIFFIN … RESPONDEN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Kedua-dua rayuan ini adalah berdasarkan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang terpelajar (selepas ini dipanggil “L/HMS”) berhubung dengan isu kuantum dalam tuntutan kes kemalangan jalanraya yang berlaku pada 1.1.2018 jam lebih kurang 5.50 petang di KM 104, Jalan Kota Bharu ke Gua Musang, Kelantan. [2] Bagi mengelakkan kekeliruan panggilan kepada pihak-pihak kerana dua kes rayuan didengar bersama, pihak-pihak akan dikenali seperti dalam perbicaraan di Mahkamah Sesyen. [3] Plaintif 1 (Mohd Firdaus bin Mohd Akhbar) adalah Responden 1 dalam kes rayuan 12B-40-09/2022 (dan tidak membuat rayuan dalam kes rayuan 12B-39-09/2022). Plaintif 1 ini adalah pemilik berdaftar dan pemandu motokar bernombor JRE 551 pada masa material. 18/12/2023 16:40:51 DA-12B-39-09/2022 Kand. 18 S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [4] Plaintif 2 pula (Farhana Haznie binti Mohd Ariffin) adalah Perayu dalam kes rayuan 12B-39-09/2022 dan Responden 2 dalam kes rayuan 12B-40-09/2022. Beliau adalah penumpang motokar JRE 551 yang dipandu Plaintif 1 pada masa material. [5] Defendan 1 (Muhammad Asyraf Naim bin Zulkifli) adalah Perayu 1 dalam kes rayuan 12B-40-09/2022 dan Responden 1 dalam kes rayuan 12B-39-09/2022. Pada masa material beliau adalah pemandu motokar bernombor DCS 4419 dan merupakan agen/pekerja/pengkhidmat kepada Defendan 2. [6] Defendan 2 (Nor Angraini binti Zulkifli) adalah Perayu 2 dalam kes rayuan 12B-40-09/2022 dan Responden 2 dalam kes rayuan 12B- 39-09/2022. Pada masa material beliau adalah pemilik berdaftar motokar bernombor DCS 4419 dan merupakan majikan/prinsipal kepada Defendan 1. Fakta kes [7] Pada 1.1.2018 jam lebih kurang 5.50 petang, Plaintif 1 dan Plaintif 2 (masing-masing sebagai pemandu dan sebagai penumpang) dalam perjalanan dari Kuala Lumpur menghala ke Kota Bharu melalui Jalan Kota Bharu – Gua Musang dengan motokar JRE 551. Manakala Defendan 1 yang memandu motokar DCS 4419 datang dari arah yang bertentangan. Apabila sampai di KM 104 jalan tersebut, telah berlaku pertembungan antara kedua-dua buah motokar. Prosiding di Mahkamah Sesyen [8] Setelah perbicaraan penuh berlangsung, L/HMS telah memutuskan Defendan-Defendan bertanggungan 100%. Tuntutan Pihak Plaintif dibenarkan dan tuntutan balas serta permohonan tolakan Defendan-Defendan ditolak. [9] Plaintif 2 (dalam rayuan DA-12B-39-09/2022) merayu terhadap sebahagian dari kuantum iaitu untuk: (i) Gantirugi am a) kecederaan complex fracture left acetabulum (transverse type and posterior wall picture) associated with left hip subluxation (award sebanyak RM45,000). S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 b) kecederaan left posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury (award sebanyak RM21,000). c) scar (award sebanyak RM16,000). (ii) Gantirugi khas a) kos membeli kasut khas (tuntutan ditolak). b) kos menggaji pembantu rumah (award sebanyak RM302,400) [10] Defendan 1 dan 2 pula (dalam rayuan nombor DA-12B-40-09/2022) merayu terhadap kuantum gantirugi khas bagi item kos menggaji pembantu rumah (award sebanyak RM302,400). Isu [11] Isu yang perlu diputuskan dalam kedua-dua rayuan berkenaan ialah sama ada gantirugi yang diberikan oleh L/HMS adalah adil, munsabah tidak rendah atau melampau dan dapat memampaskan Plaintif 2. Penelitian dan penemuan mahkamah [12] Sebelum memutuskan isu kuantum ini, saya telah merujuk kepada beberapa kes mantap berikut sebagai panduan iaitu: Ong Ah Long v Dr. S Underwood [1983] 2 CLJ 198: “It must be borne in mind that damages for personal injuries are not punitive and still less a reward. They are simply compensation that will give the injure party reparation for the wrongful act and not for all the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act, so far as money can compensate...”. Wong Li Fatt William (an infant) v Haidawati bte Bolhen & Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 497: “In considering the issue of quantum of damages, I bear in mind that an award must be fair which means that there must be a proper compensation for the injury suffered and the loss sustained”. S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [supra]: “It is well established principle that special damages, have to be specifically pleaded and specifically proved.... The reason that special damages have to be specially pleaded is to comply with its object which is to crystallize the issue and to enable both parties to prepare for trial”. [13] Setelah meneliti dan menimbangkan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, Rekod Rayuan, nota keterangan, eksibit-eksibit dokumentar dan alasan penghakiman L/HMS, saya mendapati dan memutuskan seperti berikut: (i) Rayuan kes bernombor DA-12B-39-09/2022 Gantirugi am (a) kecederaan complex fracture left acetabulum (transverse type and posterior wall picture) associated with left hip subluxation (award sebanyak RM45,000). [14] Plaintif 2 menuntut gantirugi bagi item ini sebanyak RM60,000. Manakala Pihak Defendan menghujahkan antara RM40,000 hingga RM50,000. L/HMS memberikan award sebanyak RM45,000. [15] Dalam menimbangkan pemberian gantirugi tersebut, L/HMS telah menimbangkan: (i) kecederaan complex fracture left acetabulum (transverse type and posterior wall picture) associated with left hip subluxation yang mana menyebabkan berlakunya limited range of movement left hip and incongruent left hip joint. (ii) keadaan terkini Plaintif 2 (berdasarkan laporan pakar Pihak Defendan) yang menunjukan kepatahan telah bercantum. (iii) Plaintif masih boleh mengandung selama 9 bulan. (iv) The Compendium of Personal Injuries Award 2018 (selepas ini dipanggil “Compendium”). (v) kes-kes undang-undang. (vi) laporan-laporan pakar dan laporan-laporan perubatan. S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [16] Selain dari mengambilkira pertimbangan-pertimbangan L/HMS tersebut, saya juga menimbangkan faktor-faktor berikut: (i) ketidakupayaan ini (limited range of movement left hip and incongruent left hip joint) akan berkekalan sepanjang hayat Plaintif 2. Ini berdasarkan kepada laporan pakar Dr. Zairuddin bin Abdullah Zawawi dari Klinik Tegoh bertarikh 23.4.2021 (Rekod Rayuan, Jilid 1, muka surat 314 - 315) yang menyatakan: “4) The main problem to her is the residual pain of left hip. This is due to the complex left acetabulum fracture. In my opinion the pain will be permanent. 5) This complex left hip fracture has caused limited hip movements, limping, gait, inability to squat that in turn prevent her from being able to perform praying in normal position. All these disability will be permanent.” (ii) usia Plaintif semasa perbicaraan (lebih kurang 36 tahun). (iii) telah berkeluarga dan keupayaan mengasuh anak-anak. (iv) kesempurnaan dalam menguruskan rumah tangga. (v) berhadapan dan penglibatan dengan keluarga serta masyarakat. [17] Selain dari itu saya juga menjadikan panduan keputusan kes-kes mantap yang memutuskan gantirugi bukanlah bertujuan untuk mengkayakan atau menguntungkan pihak yang menuntut tetapi bertujuan untuk seboleh-bolehnya memampaskan dia kepada keadaan seperti sebelum kemalangan. Ini telah diputuskan dalam kes: Appalasamy a/l Bodoyah v Lee Mon Seng [1996] 3 CLJ 71: “Thus, one must not forget the general rule that the function of damages in tort actions is purely to put the Plaintiff in the position which he would have been in had the tort not been committed in the first place and this can only be done through a reasonable award of damages. [18] Saya juga menggunakan prinsip “good gracious test” yang diberikan oleh mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes United Plywood & Sawmill v Lock Ngan Loi [1970] 1 LNS 164: S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 “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 has to be altered...” [19] Berdasarkan kepada kesemua pertimbangan di atas, saya berpendapat award L/HMS agak rendah. Saya membenarkan rayuan bagi item ini dan menggantikan award kepada RM50,000. Keputusan L/HMS diketepikan. (b) kecederaan left posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury (award sebanyak RM21,000) [20] Bagi item ini Plaintif 2 menuntut gantirugi sebanyak RM25,000. Manakala Pihak Defendan menghujahkan RM20,000. L/HMS memberikan award sebanyak RM21,000. [21] Dalam memberikan award tersebut, L/HMS telah menimbangkan: (i) kes-kes undang-undang (ii) Compendium (iii) laporan pakar Plaintif 2 yang menyatakan kecederaan ini di tahap 3. (iv) laporan pakar Pihak Defendan berdasarkan kepada pemeriksaan terkini bahawa kecederaan Plaintif 2 adalah di tahap 2. (v) laporan pakar Pihak Defendan berdasarkan kepada pemeriksaan terkini juga mengesahkan left knee instability will be permanent. [22] Dengan mengambilkira kepada pertimbangan L/HMS dan pertimbangan saya seperti dalam tuntutan item (a) di atas, saya berpendapat award yang telah diberikan oleh L/HMS adalah munasabah, adil, tidak rendah dan tidak melampau (excessive). Oleh itu rayuan bagi item ini ditolak dan keputusan L/HMS dikekalkan. (c) scar (award sebanyak RM16,000) [23] Bagi item ini Plaintif 2 menuntut gantirugi sebanyak RM30,000. Manakala Pihak Defendan menghujahkan antara RM8,000 hingga RM10,000. L/HMS memberikan award sebanyak RM16,000. S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [24] Berdasarkan kepada pertimbangan L/HMS (kes undang-undang dan Compendium), saya juga mengambilkira kepada saiz, tempat dan keadaan terkini parut-parut tersebut serta pertimbangan saya dalam item (a) di atas, award yang diberikan oleh L/HMS adalah munasabah, adil, tidak rendah dan tidak melampau (excessive). Oleh itu rayuan bagi item ini ditolak dan keputusan L/HMS dikekalkan. Gantirugi khas (a) kos membeli kasut khas [25] Mengenai item ini saya bersetuju dengan keputusan L/HMS yang menolak tuntutan Plaintif 2 berdasarkan alasan: (i) laporan pakar Pihak Defendan yang mengesahkan Plaintif 2 tidak mengalami sebarang kependekan kaki. (ii) laporan pakar Plaintif 2 sendiri mengesahkan laporan ini. (iii) kesakitan pada pinggul kiri Plaintif 2 boleh dipulihkan (berdasarkan laporan pakar Plaintif 2 dan laporan pakar Pihak Defendan) dengan menjalani total hip replacement surgery/left hip replacement surgery berbanding dengan kasut khas. (iv) item tersebut tidak diplidkan. [26] Dengan itu rayuan bagi item ini ditolak dan keputusan L/HMS dikekalkan. (b) kos menggaji pembantu rumah (award sebanyak RM302,400) [27] L/HMS memberikan award bagi item ini untuk sejumlah RM302,400 atas dasar upah RM50 sehari, 3 kali seminggu dan untuk tempoh 42 tahun (anggaran jangka hayat). Dalam memberikan award ini, L/HMS telah menimbangkan: (i) laporan pakar Pihak Defendan yang menyatakan (Plaintif 2): “The patient cannot do heavy duty that requires assistant or maid to help doing the house cores.” (ii) laporan pakar Plaintif 2 sendiri menyatakan Plaintif 2 memerlukan seorang pembantu rumah kerana ketidakupayaannya. S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (iii) tiada penjelasan dari laporan pakar Plaintif 2 sama ada memerlukan seorang pembantu biasa atau yang terlatih atau dari ahli keluarga. (iv) Plaintif 2 kini (selepas kemalangan) menggunakan seorang pembantu yang bernama “Kak Dian” bagi menguruskan rumah dengan upah RM50-RM60 sehari untuk 3 kali seminggu. (v) ketidakupayaan Plaintif 2 tidak begitu teruk sehingga memerlukan pembantu rumah sepenuh masa. (vi) Plaintif 2 bukanlah tidak boleh melakukan apa-apa kerja. [28] Saya bersetuju dengan pertimbangan-pertimbangan L/HMS tersebut. Sebagai tambahan, saya juga menimbangkan: (i) tempoh 42 tahun yang di ambilkira oleh L/HMS adalah terlalu panjang. (ii) perlu di ambilkira di masa depan bahawa anak-anak Plaintif 2 sudah dewasa dan boleh membantunya. (iii) suami Plaintif 2 juga berkebolehan dan berkewajipan membantu. (v) menggunakan judicial notice saya berpendapat upah harian bagi kerja-keja mengurus rumah sekarang adalah antara RM100 hingga RM120 sehari. (vi) menggunakan judicial notice juga, saya berpendapat kekerapan pembantu rumah tersebut untuk menguruskan kerja-kerja rumah Plaintif 2 adalah 2 kali seminggu. [29] Seperti yang saya nyatakan di atas tadi, saya juga menjadikan panduan keputusan kes-kes mantap yang memutuskan gantirugi bukanlah bertujuan untuk mengkayakan atau menguntungkan pihak yang menuntut tetapi bertujuan untuk seboleh-bolehnya mempampaskan dia kepada keadaan seperti sebelum kemalangan. [30] Berdasarkan kepada pertimbangan tambahan ini, saya memutuskan award kepada item ini adalah seperti berikut: RM100 X 2 kali X 4 minggu X 20 tahun X 12 bulan = RM192,000 [31] Rayuan bagi item ini oleh Plaintif 2 ditolak dan keputusan L/HMS diketepikan. S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (ii) Rayuan kes bernombor DA-12B-40-09/2022 Gantirugi khas (a) kos menggaji pembantu rumah (award sebanyak RM302,400) [32] Ulasan, penemuan dan keputusan saya adalah seperti dalam kes rayuan Plaintif 2 kerana melibatkan item yang sama. Oleh yang demikian rayuan Pihak Defendan ini dibenarkan dan keputusan L/HMS diketepikan. Keputusan [33] Sebahagian rayuan Plaintif 2 ditolak dan sebahagian dibenarkan. Manakala rayuan Pihak Defendan dibenarkan. [34] Sehubungan itu pihak-pihak menanggung kos masing-masing. [35] Faedah 2.5% setahun dari tarikh writ saman difailkan hingga ke tarikh penghakiman rayuan dan 5% dari tarikh penghakiman rayuan hingga penyelesaian penuh. Bertarikh: 30 November 2023. (ROSLAN BIN ABU BAKAR) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu. PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi pihak Perayu: Tetuan Azhar Fazuny, No. F3, Lot 478, Seksyen 14, Jalan Bayam, 15200 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Bagi pihak Responden: Tetuan Zaid Ibrahim & Co, Pt 1541, Taman Iman Jaya, Wakaf Che Yeh, 15150 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. S/N zhJDWQjJRUWsPCliuECjsg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24NCvC-436-03/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) GREGORY SEOW 2. ) JOANNE LEE SAW ENG RESPONDEN 1. ) KKHILLS MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) TEH BIN KHUAN 3. ) LIM KIAN CHONG 4. ) HICOM-GAMUDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Guarded and gated development – Sale and Purchase Agreements and Deeds of Mutual Covenants signed by all purchasers of 270 units – assignment clauses in the Deed of Mutual Covenants – management and maintenance of security services in guarded and gate development – developer’s assignment of roles and functions of providing security in completed development to Residents Association – whether valid and binding upon purchasers – whether burden annexed to benefit is assignable – conditional benefit principle – whether applicable in Malaysia – subsequent assignment by Residents Association to a limited company – limited company’s shares and directorship held by only four purchasers in the development – whether limited company is a legal entity contemplated to be assignee under the assignment clauses of Deed of Mutual Covenants – whether second assignment by Residents Association to limited company is valid or binding upon all the purchasers – general meeting of Resident’s Association as a registered society – proposed agenda in notice of general meeting in general and usual terms – no specific agenda or mention of divesting or transfer of the principal business of society – meeting attended by a fraction of total members – resolution passed to assign the Association’s entire roles and functions on guarded and gated services to the limited company – whether resolution valid – invalid second assignment and resolution – remedies appropriate to the situation – whether receiver and manager should be appointed over the Residents Association – overall interest of non-profit society and its members.

17/12/2023

YA Tuan Tee Geok Hock

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4d468177-8606-4ab4-af06-43852c1f0558&Inline=true

17/12/2023 20:33:03 BA-24NCvC-436-03/2023 Kand. 63 S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N d4FGTQaGtEqvBkOFLB8FWA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mL—2mcvc—a3s—n3/2023 Kand. 63 1‘/)2/2017. 2a 22 LVK IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAVA IN SHAH ALAM IN YHE STATE or SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA ORIGINAYING suMMoNs No.- BA-24Ncvc.ns-nmozz IN THE MATYER or KK HILLS MANAGEMENT sDN sun (COMPANY No.:I:I7uu:—r) AND IN THE MATTER or KOTA KEMUNING HILLS RESIDENTS AssocIATIoN [REGISTRATION No, : PPM-00I»ID»I6fl22011) AND IN THE MATTER or SECTIONS sssm) AND (K) AND OTHER RELEVANT I=RovIsIoNs OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2m 5 IN THE MAr1ER or SECTION 2 AND omER RELEVANT PROVISIONS or THE CORPORATION Act was AND IN IN: MATYER or RULE 15 RULE as‘ RULE 2a AND RULE 22 or THE RULES or DOURI’ 2nI2 AND IN THE MATIER or THE scHEnuLE 10 THE coums or JUDIEE ACT 1964 AND sw u4FGn2aGIEuvEmFLDaFwA 'Nnl2 Sum M... M“ be used M mm u. DIWVMHIY mm; “Mm. VII AFILING VWLII IN THE MATIER or m: srzcmc ACIOF195|1 mm IN THE MATIER or 1uE CONTRACT ACY 1nso aErwEEN 1. GREGORY sEow (IDENTITY CARD NO. :s1o1na-1u‘s:u9) 2. JOANNE LEE SAW ENG unswrmr emu NO. : wzssa-1a-5215) FLAINTIFFS AND 1. KKHILLS MANAGEMENY sun BHD (COMPANY Na. :137aan3-1 TEH am KMUAN (sum IN ms PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS PRESIDENT or KOTA KEMLIMING HILLS REsIuEuT's Assocwlou) 3. LIM KIAN CHUNG (suzn IN ms PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS VICE PRESIDENT 05 Ken KEMIJNING HILLS RESIDENTS ASSOCIAIION) A. HICOM-GAMUDA DEVELOPMENT sou am: (comuuv NO.28575fl-D) ...nEFEuuAMrs Q gym; 9: QLQDGEMENT sw u4FGma43IEnvtzmFuzaFwA -ms Sum M... M“ be used M wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm [36] [351 which supulaxad «or assIgnrnen| onna entire ngms, berrams, burdens and cbnuanonr M me Devawuper/M" Defendant umer ms Dead at Mulual coverrrrnxs 1'DMC') to are Rasidanra‘ Assouauun Vs invsuu. unenloroeame and vow an me. On me omer hand‘ me Delandzms argue Ina: me Iype Ind name of me nsnvs, bananas, burdens and obligations L71 me Devewper/4" Delendam under me DMC ara capable of bemg vallzfly sssrgneu and Ihalme om: byils harms expressw prowdes Var such assrgrrrnam. and Kherefom ms Mas\arAss\gnmant is wand and binding. Having ran an»: oormdsred me dscldad amhnrmes cnea by lhi panias, |hIs Conn hsld In . (a) as a genarax runs, a hurdan or onngnnan under an agreement cannot be validly sasxgrrea m a norvpany; and ur) however, as exoepnan merexa, a pamcular lype and nature ol cunIracma\ burden or amgauorr can be validly assigned |oge|h2r warn ma rights and bansms undev the same conrram A0 a mm- pany who becomes the aasignaa. The general Me nss heen declded m vanous cases rnaluurng Houslnu and Duvllopmem sum v Lu Sam Voonn sun and [1957] MU 20: (Supreme Cowl)‘ Lindon Glrden: Yrusl Lm v urmra Sludgu Dispnuls Lu 3 On: and Anor Appul [ma] 3 AH ER 417 (Hausa at Lords)‘ tanrum v Auoclma Ponlarra Cement rnarrur-uurm ud (190212 KB sen (caun of Appeal or Enq\am1)r wmla ms exoepnorr nas been rudiarauy recognised m wflous cases inclu ' Harsan v Erlull[1957]1 All ER :71, Tile v Waddull (Na 2mm 3 All ER 129 (Megsrry v-c ac p 290, 251 and 32:2)‘ Dlvlns v Jnnu [2009] EWCA n sw ruFGma13IEqvtzmn.aaFwA -uus sum In-nhnv M“ as used m mm as nflmrrnfllli mm; dun-mm VI] mum Wm (35! [37] [33] Cw mu (English Court av Appeau, Thamumud Town Ltd v Allotny [ma] 3 EGLR 91 (Engnsn caun of Augean, wuklnum v Komno Lou [2013] EWCA Cw 44 (Engnsn counemppeex). Elwood v Goodmln [2014] on 442 (Enghsh Count 0! Apnea!) Megarry J H1 mu v. Waddnll (No. 2) described lhs exnaplmn ss mnamunal henaflt nnnclpla. The camlllomil benem Drmdvle prepounaea by Msgany J \n ma v.W:ddI|I (No. zjwas am vmphedly appmved by me House 51 was in Rhonu v Stephan: [I 9%] 2 AC :10. The canamonax benefit principle was scam: by Msgsny v-c \n ma v. Wlddcll (Na. 2) as ionaws: -. An Instrument may be /mrnea so am 7! confers unly a conditional sr quannaa ngnr, lhs cumimon or qua/rficatkm mung ma: censrn msmcuans man be snowed or csnarn burdslvs sssumeu, such as an ab/)gs11arI to make cenam psymams, Such rssmclmns or qualmca!/on: am an rnmnsfc par! of ms ngnr you rake ms ngm as n stands, and you cannot ptck out me good and rsjsd the bad, In such casss, :2 rs na! anly ms orvgms! [ob/Igor] who rs bound by me human‘ Ins successors m me am unable to lake me right wrthour also sssunung the amen. ms bcnuiii and the burden nave nun lnnexed to men othar sn Inmo, And so the tune}?! is only a cu:-dltlonll znnam ' The Engusn Cuurl av Appeal in Dzviu V Jan I [2009] EWCA Civ 1154 ('Devies“j nnalysed me aforesaid cases mdudlng a «aw amsr English Conn :11 Appeal cases and new (at [27], p.766) |hal the foHawing pmpuslfions ocmd be msuuea «mm me uses anawsed syn mFGm:13IEqvm<un.aaFwA -nus smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmrufllli mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm [35] (1) The henem and human must be Durlfulved in n( hy me same hansarrfium (2) Tbs racaipl or an|ayman| at me hsnem must he revevam en ma Amposmon o1 me burden In ma aanaa mac me farmer musl ha nondmunal on or nae-pmax lo ma Vafler, and (3) The person on whom me burden Vs allagsa to ham been Imposed mun have or have had me hppomunuy or rqecung or mscuwmna ma benefit‘ rm merely ma nghl In receive me henam. («nu Davlss mpar\Ihe1ormu\al\orI'| Tm: coun agrees man ma axcapuon, also deshnhaa as communal hanem pnnuple. has also baen ramgmsad in Malaysia see Houslng ind Davclnpmnnl scam v Lu sun vaung Sdn Bud [1957] 2 MLJ 2:74, [1937] 4 ms an (Supreme chum, cnung Khlaw Elnk Ltd. v Po Inn sum-n sun. and. 1199011 cu (Rep) man 751 A-B. (19901 1 MLRH 495 (Mohamed Dulddm J (later cm, Aflln-ACF Hnanoo aamaa v Mariplnx Sdn and 3 on [2010] 3 MLRH 653-, pm 1] 5 cu 455; [21710] MLJU 969 [Namm .1 (now roan, In Houfing and Dlvolopmunl sham v L-e Sam Voona Sdn Bhd (supra) me Supreme ooun exhuessxy approved and applied me nundmonal hanem principle In me conhwmg passage hnne iudgmem: wa are or me View met me sssrgnmen.‘ rn mis aasa falls wide! the crassmcazmn of canamanal h-nams as sxpoundud hy Megsmy v.c. In no V wamsalr (No z)[1v77] 1 an 105, 291:, um where ms benefit and lhs lmrdsn rn an man-umam has been annexed to each otherab rnmo sucn that me conditions ov mslnbfions became an Intrinsic pad DI ma ngnz, it rs no! only me orfgma! granles wnu rs bound by me burden but ms 51155953013 :7: We must lake ma ngm as well as asaurmng me burden “ 13 an mFGm:13IEqvm<uH.aaFwA -uua sum n-nhnrwm be used m mm In: hrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm wa mum Wm [401 Asswgnzmhty onnanaus under me law olaselgnmem is a oommon law pnnaova Much was am: extended In Indude eouuama asslgnmam. Common law pflnmwe: have been oovompeo -n tandem wun ma progress olsoclely 47: light av changes and nsw davotopnyans In our We and sochzty, erlher new common «aw prmclplas are anonaaoao or me praansnng common waw onnoiplaa mum in m In wnn «he needs and common weubaing 0! ma aocmy al me mwevanx am. my In Me wixn ma changes and aavelaomema Vn our ma, aoonomy ano satiety, n s ooun hold manna onndmonal banem prlndme memo be apphad m Malaysia [42] Nfhnugh the 4”‘ Defeodanfs cwnsel, lasing Ihe counsel win? s|mng\y advocalzs Iha apulication of the onndmolml benelfl principle in Malsysh through ms argument; here, has also iubmilled I7\EI| ONY requirements :1) and (3; In mama moanno lurvrlmanun are really nscassaly far [he appllcilhon oi the wndlllonm bansfil principle in 2 pamclflar case, 0115 Cmm yrsfals Ihe English Court t7fAppei|'s Davies lrlpltlfle IDITVIUWEIHDH \n R: enwlly [431 The teas/ans «owns preference Include. (2) ma English coun cf Appeal naa earned out an ana|yIica\ oonsmaratmn onna ra\e»/am pasmacisiuns wore oomlng nouns eonuuaxon (b) oonamonax benefit pdndpla is an ampnon to ma ganeml ruie against ass-gnmenx 0! human anoulo not be formmated loo widely so much so (he! lhe general rule wauid be erased or oomayanad, n mFGm=GIE~MzmFuzaFwA None a.nn n-nhnrwm be .5... a mm In: onmnauuy mm: dun-mm wa mum WM ta) wnn me increase tn trades and Dommarctal parteadupns and me Inctuasing cdmpxsxiues of me pnntrectuel trsnsscuorts, VI has become rtet uncemmen to have parnes VI a wnllacl stipulating for dlfletanl and separate mailers balwaen them, and the removal dc requwement (zt from me Davies tnpanne tdnnulaupn womd Dr is hkaly In resun VI esstgrtapmty at 31! or meet Iypes at burdens In s contract, thereby wearing an anamaly «:1 rnaxtng me expepuort much wider man «rte general Ma; and (:1) me mndmanat benefit prtnctpte wttn raqniramanl 12) s mom ounstslanl wi|h me Gaexlslence wart me weueetttnd docmne or severabtmy in mutual tsnne. 144} tn our present case‘ trre trensecttpn between tne nevendper and me Plz we was ms eats and purchase as restdermet muse to be built by me Developer Iogelher wrth lam‘l' 5, services and common areas Indudmg security guards [451 The SPA and ma DMC were signed tdgemsr on the same say when (he uevetoper and the Platnutre entered Vila the sale and purcrtsse transacuan. [45] Under tns we, we burden L7! pmvtdtng security guard: was td be nendted snd managed by me nevetdper, and me eerrertt at rtsvtrtg secunty guards and merevdre enhanced seeunty In Ine Get/e|opmer|| ts me tntemeu amen nonam to he enmyad by me Bulchasers as mstdents VI tne development as N mFGYa=I3IE~MzkuFt_aaFwA we s.n.t n-nhnrwm es used m mm ms pflmnnflly mm: dun-mm vta .nuue wnxt [47] [451 [491 [59] [51] [52] Tna lndinc1 rnunaury bunlfil M a pmbemy bener market vame at resmenua: house kn e guanm ccmmumly we win (0 pa enloytd by all ma purchasers or resmenual unns (n a guarded and gated cummumly. N Is semed wew that mere can be morelhan une aocumenu in Iesvscl (.11 a xrarsecnon. Vn me prerrvaaa, the same requirement (1; has been vumuad‘ Is. ma penem and human must be wnferred in or by me ume nrensaampn. Tna raqmnernam (2) is that me mcalpl or enioymam anne nenem must be relevam |oms Impusmon anne human in me sense cnannelarmer must pe condi|u:na\ an or vedprocal to me laller. A panya benem .5 usually also anclhsf party‘: burden As tar as me Developer ws cuncemed, ma burden Is H1 respect or pmwsinn 01 secumy guams arm hivvng In narrme and manage me arnpioyrnem at secunly guards, Ihelr musing needs and remuneraucns, while the aaannng nenem to me Devsmpar Is me right: to pause: service cnargee nem ma purchasers mm n \s r\a| e reax beneru because u a a non-Dmfit acfiwly). As far as me pmpeny pumnasere and/ur vssidsnls are concerned, Lhslr panama at na ’ security guams up guard me davelupmam are newer secumy and hkalihaad mi beltav market venues for their rasidennal pmparliss m a guamed pumrnunny, wmre «nevr burden is me nayment ol eervrpe enemas mama me costs 01 secunly gnams. 15 n mFGm=13IE~MznuFuzaFwA Nuns sarm n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms annmun mm: dun-mm wa mune wrm [531 The propefly purchusars‘ benefits, dsnved ircrn Ihs provision or sscuriw guards, are relevant to me Imposmon 01 ms Deveiopers burden in ins sense Ihal malmmer are wndmanal on or recipmcai la me izmer Dayeiopers burden lhhs Dmiuper removes ma prwisian ofsecunty guards‘ me pmpany purchasan would npienrpyuny benefit cf bstiersammly nr hkalihood pi halter mama: value of pmpsmss In a gumea oornrnuniiy Inna purdiasels remove ineir burden pi having to uanmbme Isrvioa charges‘ man irenems pt heller security and likslihoud al ennanoea mnrkel value at nmperries In A guamea wpuip also vanish [54] In me cirwrrulances. irris cpun has held that raquirunreni (2) pi Davies lripanlle iarrnuiaiion is vuiiiiisa hers. [551 M regards requirement (3) mar me persnn on wnorn me burden Is alleged |0 have been imposed rnusi have or have had me opwtunuy of reiecung or disclaiming irre oenaiii, nm rnsreiy me rrpm to receive me benefit, ii is nu|ed irrai when the properties In this neueipprnenr proieu were sow by me Developer In me purchasers lnclu mg ma F-iarmriis and warn ine signing arm DMA srrnuiianeousiy wiin ins SPA, each purchaser knaw an ma iirne oi signing an and DMA mar me devslonmeni ms Io be a guarded community and they signed me apreurnems rnin imenlion and/or rscrprpcai commitments |ha| they wauia conlribmslawards me cpsrs ulsacurify guard: [55] Ifa buyer and not want me iinanciai burden ohxmlnbuling Inward: are cos|s of secuflly gums in an guama uornrnuniry, nusne snaum not have imupnr any unit of pruperry worn me Deveiaperwiin such guarded eornrnuniry ieaiura and Iamis. A pmennai purdiaser had, at live rune 17 N mFGm=13IE~MzkuFi.aaFwA um s.n.r n-vihnrwm r. used m yaw r. nflmrruflly MVMS dun-mm VI] urium mm [571 [551 [59] [av] l5ll befuve me slgnlng of sun and me, lne Ml oupommity In relect or dlsclaim (Ila benefit cl belter sswrily in a planned development wnn gunre eommumly by hllvl/her rsiuslng In buy lrle pmpmy arm also refllslrlg In slgll lhe SPA and DMC. ll be/Ella did not slgrl the SPA and DMC to buy any properly rrr a planned developrnenl wrln guarded comrnunrty, than halsrla vmuld have no harden 01 rlavlng to contribute luwanis Illa boils Dl‘ securlly guards ln me clrdunurlanoss nere, requlremenl (3) rs also lulrllled ln the express harms M M! DMC, ma purchasers including the Plalrlllfll spealflcally agreed that the Developefs handling and managamenl al me seculily servlce will Ml be (clever. and trial lrla Developer has been glvan unless ovnlraclual nghfi. aflar lha complemovl 07 the conslruchan and developmenl cf the pmlam‘ to assign lls mles and mrrcudns urrderme we lo me Residents Associallan D! oolporahcn Here, by way ol the Masler Aeslgnmsnl daled 1.12.2020. the Developer asslgned ll: roles and iunclinns lo lne Rasldarlls Assoclatlnrl comprlslrlg or members who are purchasers ol lhe properly onus "1 «ms prorecl. ln ma premlsea, mls CDWI rlald lhal ms Masler Asslgrlmanl lrorn me Developer lo me RA Is valld and blrldmg upon allltle pumhnsels rn me dsvslopmarll prolecl lrldspendenflyaflhe norldlllonal nenenl prirlclpler even declded cases men did no\ rnennorr me cundlrinnal nsrrelll prrncrple have held me: the paymem obllgafim blrldslha lransleree wnere Irvele re a clearand 11 em d4FGrq:GlEqvm<UFl.aaFwA ‘Nata Smnl In-vlhnrwlll re used m mm r.. nflnlnnllly MIN: dun-mm VI] nFluNG mm [52] [63] [641 obvious Hnk bamaen the rrghrs sniayea av Iha iransieree and ure epiigsueri Io oon|rIbu(e (0 I118 costs o1 pravieing his service or iacimy hem which «he riphmrenrsyrnerri is derived (see Ehrrood v Goodman [2014] ch 442), or where an instrument may be irerriee ss msr ii convers e nprrnrrei is cnndnionamn esnsin rssmaiorrs baing ohservsd prcsrrsirr burdens essumea (see criurrg Krrizrrr B-rrir Lw. v ronrrng Gardtn surr.ahr1.[1s9o]i cu (Rep) ms a|751A4a and Alfin»ACF rinsrrco amine v Meriplox Sdn arm A or: mm} MLJU use, or where (he paymznt obhgsfinn is reieiea In me rights or perrern which lha person has corrnrruee in exercise er Emily [see Wlllllnlon v Kara-no Lid [2012] EW{‘A civ 44). Here, aner having bought me pmpsrry UN! in e eeveioprrrsrri wilh guersee eorrirrruniry issrure. me Pieiniihs have cerirrrruea I» enjoy the nerrsm pr eeusr sscumy and llkeflhaod of enhanced market vaiue or awning e prupany unit in e guarded eerrrrrrunny. The henemsomeniersecunzy and Iikeiirrspuaterrhsrisea malkalvalua of owning s prepeny unit in a gusmee oammumw wnlinue |a he eruoyed by me Plaintiffs 50 long as «hey are where oflhe nmperry unit The nreserri ease Ls uriiixe lhose where err ssszprrrrrem Insrrumanl seeks to impose s nan-payment rype of phvsisei eniigerieri uperr me sunseeuerri payer, suerr es aniigarrpri In repair his own repmiierr was adjacent in e rrergrrbeurs roof mien. v. sxepharm, e|c. In cases where the ease: cl assignment merely imposes a peyrrrem obiigeiiorr uparr rrre mrrireciee arising irom works in services to becanled nulhy erroiher perseri which herieme me cnnrracles and such service or work 1! srrr ruFGYq:I3IEqvm<uFi.aaFwA -use s.r.i I-vihnrwm re used m mm are uflmrrsflly MW: dun-mm wa sriurm wnxi ws wha| me mmracleds angina! cnn(rac1 axplassly simulated‘ then: \s no valvd Vsgal rsasun lorthe comrades to refuse In make payment [or such service orwurk. [as] In summing up, me assugnmenx ollhe Developers mamenance and managsmenl VImnl\ans, mm; and obugatmns Ihruugh me Msslar Asswgnmenc Io me RA was vahd and binding upon me rsswdenu xndudlng me Pwamms 2'-' main mm: wn-um mu run mmnmum Mme RA 1 malmnnlncu and mmngomonuuncfiom, rigms Ind cbllgnlonslo the 1-‘ uuon¢am- uumpany wu nun ma binding upun mo 1 Moms including me Plzimivrs [as] Anslng «am am F|a\nIiffs' arguments m vespsct M019 2''“ mam wssua. me outcome 5! me 2“ mam wssus depends an me fcllowmg sun issues‘ (1) whemsf [he asYaI>lishmerIl U1 KKHHIS Management Sdn Bhd VI Mega! and ulva I/FIGS the C0ns(I|uhon of the Residanls‘ Assumuon or Kola Kamumng Hull . (2) whemsr KKHIUs Management Sdn BN1 is is competent Vagal BMW to re Iha asskgnmenl Mlha nfles and functions lrom lha RA under Ihe DMC5‘ and (3) whether III we rsstflutinns or parl memo! passed in me annual general meeting at Residents’ Assoctafloll of Kola Kamunmg Hills held on 19.3 2022 679 [MI and void and of no Bflem. N mFGm:13IE~Mzkun.aaFwA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm anouuns or Junsaugm Introduction [11 Over me years‘ guarded and gabed oommunmes have beuoma me prefelved dioioa 01 rssiaermai pruperlies by home buyer: who can afford in pay Dmnerty prices a| a pisrmurn over muse comparable properties wimoui guarded arm aiied iuaiuras 12] The viairwiiis, co-owner: 01 ans urin ui bungalow house‘ are smunq me numeraus buyers um baugm bunqakyw huusas (270 uniis) sl Kamunirig Hm: imm Ihe dlvaloper Himm-Gamuda nsueiupmsric Sdn arm, me 4* Defendant herein we Deusiopsr; on basis and isms |hzl iris usuaiupmsrii pmiact wnuld be a guarded and gated community In auaiuau so may uuuai Sale and Purchase Agrearnenli each al in. ongmai homlbuylrs signea a new 01 Mulual Covenants of iuenusai isrms mm ms Devslaper nagarumg mu mainiamznce and mariagariisni nlcumnmn sorvioes and iasiixrss Indudlng Ihe prvvisosn oi sawmv guards. {3} me pmssm suil by me Pisirmvis IS sgsirisi KKHHKS Management Sdn aim as H15 1-! nsisnaam (-me Managsmsm company‘), we 2"-1 and am ueienasrm in iiieu pmnnsi capaoihas and sisu their miiciai capacills: as iris amen beam: aims rssidsms ssssciaum described as Residents‘ Assuciauon of Kola Kauiunirig Hills (‘the RA’) and the Develops! as me 4“’ Delendam [4] in me ongiriaiirig Summuns risrs, the Plaimifls pray for numerous Ilsms of reliefs mm (a) in M) which can he cunvsrueniry grouped into me Isiiawma bruaa ca(e9°r1es. sin iuFGm:I3IEqvtzkuFi.aaFwA -um s.r.i In-vihnrwm be used M mm s. uriimiiu sum. dun-mm VI] mum Wm! Sub-Iuuo (1): wiienm KKHIIII Maiugum-in Say: and II Illtgal and ultra virus the Connlllullon oniio RA zen Sub-issue (I),lnrInuIaIed immme reHe41a)prayed for bylha Flainlflfs, Involves a lilismalnh aflwu features The iegaiiiy on Hmilad company such is KKHHls Mariageriieiii Sdn am is iiai dependent on whom: DY rum is objectives. business or anicies oiassooaiion aio mnsislenl mm uieiemis aims cunsiiumoii oi me Residents’ Asoooiaxiori o1Kma Kamuriiiig Hills — a aiiioioii: iegai orimy Les} Nlhnugh Membsl! ola society are bound by me rules and ooi-smuisoii oiiiie 5DCI8fyll'H7IE1f uoaoiiy as members‘ ma members 013 society have mo freedom oi nlhsr assooiaiiaii ima are «me la ioim a Ilmiled oomoaiiy oi moi: own choice. Such iiiiiiioa company incorpmaisd by some memoeiz. oia society IS a iogai and iawiui oompmiy as ioiig as II is irioarporaieo iii aoooroaiioe wim me Cumpzmes Am aiia iiss lawful obiaclives [as] in me pioiiiises, ii Is a iiiismaiui aiio mil oruiaosio ooiisiner oi deckie wiieiiiei ms esianiisnmem oi Kmiiis Minagsmem Sdn and is iiiogai and Mrs was the coiisuimion oi mo Rusiden1s' Assooiaiioii oi Kala Kamunmg Hiils. Sub-Issue (2): wiiuim or not an Dlllnagumanl Company can mmiuy uni. wcrflin mlu nnd fllllcllolll oima RA Illldlrlhl DMC no} However, i| iv. a different ouesiioii wfiemer nr nnl such limiled company can iawiuiiy lake uysi ma mies and iunciioris oi ma socioiy TM! oiiiigs us io sub»issus (2). N nuFGm=I3IE~MzkUFuzaFwA mo s.ii.i in-vihnrwm be used M mm i.. nrwiruflly mi. dun-mm VI] nF\uNG WM! my Clauses am. me which are rulavanllo mls quaanon whemerurnol such hmmsd company can Vawfully lake over the rules am funcflona Mme may ave rapmduced bemw: 4.1a Homnovvnur The Pumnaasr further agree: and covenants wnn ma Vendor that me Vsmiovnlay, a: any Irma narsaaer and Nraqmredhy ma Vendor as the vsnctonn rm abso/ure disaerizm may deem «it establish :3! cans: to s n M manmn a hnmeuwners lssoclntlon or carpumfian la lak- over an or any part or cm dutics awlgauons Ind fllncflons mn- Vendor is set am In ws um. Far ma avmdarlca ol doubt, ms Vendor shall nol bs amigaa to recogmse any homauwnsls aaaocyaruan formed by me Furchsseland/mlhe other ownsls wnnnu: the Vendor’: prim wnnan consent. 5.5 Astignmonl ol the comma Ana and/or khu F..:nm'-s rna Vendor slvafl have ma absa/ms ngnz and may at any Irma tn mnupmery sssvgrv an or any pan 0/ na on/Igabcn uncle! this clause Ia mafnlam ma Common Area and/or the Faci/fires In any other psrw palson or cflmmsfion as me Vendor may In its abmlmu mauanon uaama m and upon aucn assrgrvmem as sfovasam ma Purchaser shall mersallsl deal with ma sxsrgnss in resaecl arau manor: panainrng to Ms same and shall pay aucnargas ralovred m In c/am 7 dllacl/y la lhs sssrgnse uaanimsuandrng mo gonmmy of kh: runagorny mo Vondor ronn/as in ngms at any mm to runwnder an at any pm om: duties Ind obllyllian in Int Pumhnnr and to ma olher awnlls coummty m an homoownlrs assomuan as set out ll! Clause 4 11 and/cl to me Authority IN sum manual as the Vsndor deems In and anal: no! In any wny be liable to ma Purchaaer in am svsnt. N mFGma13IE~Mzmn.aaFwA ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnafllli MIN; dun-mm wa anum pm [12] 5.1 Fmvlslon Iar ma 5 rvl Subject to Cause 5.2 and crausa 5.3 afthis Deed name’, the vendor shall pmvtds any we saunas: and secunty xsrwces unm ma slml an man nvuby ma namewanew auomuan flflny) Ind/or the Aurnomy fwhlchovor is tppliclble) Pnmaaa Almsy: may rv me sard Pmpsrry shall rsmam vacant wnnam any aonmmarmn works earned nu! thereon by ma Purchaser. ma Vendor snarl be anmradmn shall nm In on/iged to our ma glass penmircally sub/act Io psymenls being maaa bythe Purcnaaana ma Vandal as provvdedln Clause 7 2 nemov. 3.3 Asclgnmlnt ol the Suvlcos nnd mimananae nfabllullag rna Vandal anan naya ma ansnlule um and //berfy at any trans to complete/y sssvgn an ar any pan 0/ as abhganon under nus mama to mafnlam the said Pmnamy and pmvids the Services In any ulnar pany portal: or carponflon 1: ma Vnndar may in It: ibsolutl dlscruliun dawns m and upon mn assignment as afolesard the Purchaser shall msresnar dsal with ma sssrgnae ll! respect cl all matters parrammg to ma Sevvrcs and snarl pay ma Sslvfce Chulge telbned m in Clause 9 dnswy Io ma assrgnee Notwithstanding ma gananamy :7! ma /wegafng ma Vsndorrasclvss nsnghl at any nma m sunandar an or any pan aura duties and ab/rgsnom lo the Purchaser and to ma omen owns m//scltvs/y In ma homeowners assouar/an as sat out in mam 4 11 and/or lo ma Amhorfly In such manner as the Vendor deems n: and will not In any way be name to ma Purchaser rn such mm. Interpreted in ma camaxt onna we and narmonnausxy and also in ham 0! me Vndispulalfle baakgmuna laundahun :2! me sPAs between 2; syn mFGm:13IEqvtzmn.aaFwA -ma s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. nrW\ruU|Y mm: dun-mm wa muNG pm 173] [74] 175] V3] V7! me newaxoper ma vamzus pmcnaaacs, me reIevunccIsuses Mme DMC envisage max me -ssIgnmanI and lalung over at me mas and mnrmuns :2! management and aarnInIsIraIIon 01 Iacmuaa and semces Inauainq sscnnly guavds anaII be (0 me Rssmsnls Associatmn ov a corpoullon wIIscwaIy nwned, I-,anImIIea and managed by mamban cnmprismg oIaII ma pumhasars In me guarded cnmmunily meet. In our Dresenl case‘ KKHIIIS Managemam sun End Is a IImi|ed company mu Iourmanarsnolaars and fnur(4)dIrec1ors who are pm (.11 purchasers m me project. Exuapl for maaa (our (4) paasona 3!! [ha other purchasers In Ina KK HIlIs project and mnar members at me Residents Aswdaflon are rvnl anavenomers ordvsclors of KKHIHs Managemam Sdn Ehd Therehre. KKHills Managamam Sdn End IS rm! 3 Isgal enmy which ms Intended or I:on|empIaIed by Ina Developer ana me pumaseu, Mm are s>gna(orIes lo me SPA: and DMCs‘ as a IagaI ennly who I: eompshanl and ahgIble Io Lake over me roles and lunzffiurs of ma uevcnoper under the am: In ma cIn:ums(anoes‘ ma wvomad asaIgnmanI m me Second AssIgnmsn|, 5aId Io be sIgrIed hefiwean Ina RA and KKHI||s Managemenl Sdn End. is 2: Iransuuan wmch I: ma parmmad by me DMD. In me premIsss. Ims Court has nald Ihal KKHIIIS Managemenx Sdn and, wnh us snnrenalcung swclure am dIIe::1nrshIp as a| xna malsflill 2. an mFGIqaGIEqvtzI<uFI.aaFwA -nan s.n.I ...m.mn be used M mm ma annm-y mm: dun-mm VII .nunc WMI limes, Emmi Iawmny Lake aver the rules and flmclwcrls of me Rasmams Ammamon. [vex To quahiy as n compexem nrnusa ccmpany «:7 take uverlhe mas and mnwans cnne RA under me DMC m accordance wnn ms mam and purposes nnhe DMC‘ 2 llmfled company musl have (3) as as shareholders I members, an |hs property owners m the vrajacl who are able and wuung |o be as shavelwomersl mambsrs (and not mere\y same 12! such pmpsny owners)‘ and (D) a Memorandum and Anidaa of Assncxamon w11\ch are In subsunce slmnar lo the rules nuns RA. [VF] Vn summmq up on sIIb—issIIe (2). INS Court hold: that at the material mus 0! the Saoond A.ssIgnmslI|. KKHI|l§ Management Sdn Ehd was ml a cumpelem or eugmua legal enmy m renews ms assagnmenn clthe rules and fimctiors from me RA undsr the DMCS. A5 suoh‘ the purpnnsd assignmsrfl urldev We Second Assxgnmenl is Invahd and VON Sub-inua (3). v-Ildny or onnnrwlu of In: RA rnlolulioni passld an 19.2.2022 AGM [:30] we rww come to the resnhmnns passed ax I115 RA’; 11'" AGM an 19 3 2022. [an Although me gsnemx principle I: max the members are wnuacnunny bound to acoepl me mmamy declsmn of me member :1 ' ed by me AGM, 2 com may Warfare wilh such 1n1ema\ mans Mme duh in me evanl me club had acted ulna W195 the rules onus chm use Lu nu 15 n mFGYa:I3IE~MzkuH_aaFwA Nuns smm ...n.mm be used m mm n. nflmnnflly mm: mmn wa mum wrm [82] [ea] [94 [55] Sum v runku Dam’ sui snanammin hln Tunku sum Burhanuddm A On [2013] 7 MLJ 157 (High Conn) In mm cm-mopmr Htwluon vdunu Alan And otnm [2005] 2 sm :57, me swnganora H-gn Cowl held lha\ almaugh ma rnawnty ac members present m 2: maeung had an am:-na ngm up regmate procedure and/uronnducl of ma! maeung, this was nnmaa «p puruly pnzceaurax issues. An amiuamann |a vote, in contrast xp ma nmaamy m vpnng, was a supaoanuve contractual rIgh| an me pass 0! wmcn 5 legmmale expecmflon In pnmclpale In me anunauy of ma mung axarmss wnuld have axxrued la each member ananam me meenng. ms coun does nm accept me P\avmf1s' argumem Ihal emmeousw M wmngvuny denying one 11; member o1 me soolaly imm ananmng an AGM cou\d invamaxa the vescluflnns passed by cm nnnomy onnumple members who auanaeu me AGM, hearmg m mmd ma! as mamb-sf: va|ed wn lavour wmle omy 2 man saamsl Ihe pmpnsed resuluhons Fmm ma quanhly ailhe mawmy vanes ax cm 11'" AGM anna RA, me 1-! Pla\nINf.s one (1; ma wuuld not make any res! or prawaax amenanee my me mnopma Mme passing of naspluuons In me P\mn|ifls‘ counsel‘; submissions. ma Flaimms have also aygusa Iha| nna RA‘: resalmiuns on assignmem Io Kmus Management Sdn and war: not sfipulaled m ma Agenda cvpuwanea lar ma 11"‘ AC-M oi the RA and was Ihenalms invalidly or unpropeny passed a( me said AGM This Cnun hobs Ihal me punme ougenna (er a sodecya AGM Is In minim m advanca [he members ma spacmc mausra propmod |u has us an n4FGm:13IEqvtzkun.aaFwA Nuns saw ...n.mn be used m mm a. nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm passed ai me AGM so that me members we duiy inienned and can decide wheihar er nol may want In anend ine pamcular AGM to discuss and vets vdr oradulnsi Ihe amassed maners. mi II is 111: eidinary henna ei human beings max n ma pmpeaad Agenda am an Ina reuiina mamer or me usual managemem K7! admimslmtive m£me7sI many meniuaia an uniikaiy Ie balhar In aiiand me AGM. I-Iemeven ii me pmpasad malbers In Ins Agenda Domain a spsdal ur exiraeidinary mailer or a mauei wnicn a oi grail importance In me sodieiy or Io Ina members, aemparaiiueiy many mum members who knvw 0! such proposed Agenda wduid anend me AGM Ie panidpata In me discussions and veiind at me AGM. [371 For me RA mcieiy here, lheve weie 270 membeis hu| aniy as members attended me H” AGM based on me Manda aam em. [as] In order Io mini me bask: Ieqdneineni and Achieve Ina main dnieciiva of giving advance notice at agenda Id Ina members dc Ina snclely helore me date di me propeaed Asm. Ina agenda muei specifically slate Ine maiei ur impnflan| meneis which are proposed \o be discussed, considered and resolved at me AGM so max lhe members of Ina socieiy have Ina reasonable nppcirlumly to know Ina specmc Inaioror imvananimanam |n be discussed and ednadeiad aune AGM and decide mine er nei may warm I» aax aaide Iime ier anandanee at me AGM to suale their views and can Ineir vdiaa ier or againsi Ine pmpeeed major DY Impenaii mailers. [991 Thu oi-vice aearam Ma society cannm, under me guise nr sublie cover of -any other miller m'sm9’\ raise a specific mapur ur impenam maner 17 n d4FGYQ=GIE~1vEkUFi.BaFwA Nuns a.n.I nnvihnrwm be used M mm was anIIn.II-I MVMS dun-mm VI] aF\uNG WM! winch ls not expressly srared ln me speclfic Items 01 me eperrde. ‘Any other rrrerzer arlsr'rrg' n ma agenda «or a soclee/s AGM Ielers la rrlcldanlal, ounssquarrliel or dererung rnarrers lrr raspecl anprrrer speclfiz: rnrmar expressly slated lrl me same agenda pm ll lznnot include a lreslr matter which is rnalnr or ai much lmponanoe lo me souety an a whale. [ea] In decidmg Mlemar or npx rr panlcular manor lalls wllrrln me arnpn L71 lrra lranrs slaled rn a nL7|lca of general rneanrrg, me coun caruldere ll dblecllvely lmrrr ma vlawvolnl of a reasonable leader in ma lamual eamexl al lhe case [all ln me factual wntexl dl our present case, ens: me Davelopefl eenrpleddn of ma pluisd and aurraaqnenl |u me explry cl me delecz llablhty penad, one RA‘: roles and lunctiorls ln me mnlml and rnarrepernenl at security guards In ma prolecr ls me mle er prlnoipal purpose uflamling and ocnllnulng wirlr me RA as a souefy lezl ln lrre Agenda eenl lo me members 01 lrrs mainly, mare was no menhon whatsoever 0! any pmpesal lo assign or pass up anomar company at srrmy ma smimys rules and lunarorrs ln lrre oornrul end managemarll pl securily guards lrra Dm|sL1,WYHch was precucally the only buelnese onhs soclely oral leasnna principal huslrless aflhe society [as] The assignmem resdlurlons pulponedly passed er me HMGM would VI ellaal assign and pass to rrnnrner company (Le. r<l<Hllls Managemam sdrr Bhd) me anly ornrinclpal buslrlsss alihe sumaly ra N d4FGYa=13IE~Mzl<uFl.aaFwA Nata Smnl n-vlhnrwm re used m mm ms nrwlrrnllly sum. dun-vlnrrl wa nFluNG wnxl 1941 Wm: due mspscl |a me Olfioe Bearers enne seaeey and meeverwere advismg lhsm at me mama: wnee, me assnnmenx resolution wrnoneeuy Damn al Ihe m AGM were passed Vn oamravsnhun a1 ma pnnames anneenmzs aisocvanas and he conamunon otma RA. [951 In the pmmieae, we own held men me irams of neseuuuens passed Vn me ennuel Qanerzfl mezllnn av Raakienu‘ Assumalmn of Kala Ksmumng Hulls held an 1932022 am, unacvar as may purpuried In assign ur pass Iha RA’: vmes and iunzzhons under me we to KKHH|a Manaqemenx sun BI1d,nuHand vuid and DI ne sflecl. 3‘ mlln Iuu wnomur Ihu Plalnmts an ommoa In Ihe rellvfn and rlmldlu pruyou for or part moroof. [99] \n nuns Ongmahng smnnmne (-cs“), me Plainmfs seek the (allowing ralleist (a) e aeeuarenomnexme eslabI\shmenlolKKHIlls Managamanl sun and we iuegax and ma vfres me cansuuman 0! me RasIdenbs' Associauon av Kma Kemuning mus, (e) e daclamhan that an resenunens passed In me annua\ general meelmg mi Ras|dsnIs' Assouauon :1! Km: Kemunmg Hme held on 19 3.2022 (Dr such ulhav rasalmmns as Ms cam deem fit) are null and voifl and ov no enecn (c) a ueclaranon (ha| xne Masler Asslnnmenl Agreemenx dated 1 122mm 5 Invalid, unenlameame anu vom ab Who: my a dedaralion that KKHHIs Management San Ehd holds en and any er as assets Hmziufling those held by any enmy er parly) an 2; N mFGm:I3IE~Mzkun.aaFwA nee senew n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms enmnauly mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm (9) (0 (9! (M (i) lrus1 my me Ras>dsnLs‘ ksocwafion of Kora Kamunmg Hdls and/nr land owners wn Kola Kamunlng HIl\s, mcmng me Plamnfis: KK ' Managamant Sdn and «a account [or all assets and pmcaaas as Imslee m Rasrdents‘ Assocmnan amen Kamu ' mus nrm/or warm cwmurs in Kota Ksmunlng Hils. mdumng me mmnuns m each aims memes av fiduciary duly and/or bleach numsc; a eoclsranon mac Rlsmlnls‘ Aswuuninn o1Kal.a Kemumnq Nllls and/ur wand wmsrs In Kata Kemuning r-nus‘ mcludwng me Plainlifls are srmlled co Inquiry on such an awounl agams| Km": Managsmsn| Sdn and (and/or as snsrahomus and d\rectors)n a dsclaralwan Ihal Reswdens‘ Asswaflon cfkma Ksmuning HiHs and/or Rs C/fins bearers hams an and/or any 0! us assels Hncmdlng moss hand by any armies or parties) on trust for me lane awnau m Kola Kemuning Hflls, mdudinq ms Punnm, Residents‘ Assndafinn ol Kma Kemuning Hius and/or us once bsarels kn acmun« lur all assets and proceeds as Imstee to the land owners In Ku|a Kamuning Hins, includxnu me P\a\nlMs Vn each anne breaches orfidudary duly and/or breach unmsx, a dedarahon max me land ownars 1n Kata Ksmunmg Hms, mduding ma Plalmifls am enlmed lo Inquiry on such an zcmuII| agamu Resmms Assoaalmn u1Kaw Ksmumw Hills (and/or as omae bearers): zu sw mFGYq:GIEqvtzkuFuzaFwA «um s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (5) Chaflerlalng ma val atma Deva\oper‘s firstaulgnmenl olits rules and luncnuns under the Dead pnnumal cavanancs to Ihe RA. (D) cnauenginq ma val ly uflha RA’: Iesohmom da(sd19.3.2o22 and second Issmnmanl mus roles and «unnnons under our Dead :11 Mama! Covenants |o me Manapemem Company; (c) Dedaranory orders agamsl ma oerca baarers M ma RA regaldmg «max, aeenums and mslilulmllr (.1) Appalmmenl of Receiver and Manager In apsfale and manage ma guarnan and galed lacumes on Dena)! of me resmerna and mm owners m ma davs1npmun(pm;ec1:Ind (e) other ancinary and/or oonsequslmal alder: [51 on 12 Celebs 2023 Ws coun aHowed pans orma prayers saugh| by the marrmn bu| msrmssed anrrar pans L71 me Plalnufls prayars. [6] Dissatisfied. me P\am(lff nas appeaxen against me sad dedslon. The Mouse u1App2z\ dues rml claany and apenincauy slats wrnch pana of ma aarn nacisron vurrn ma suluem maner af awaal. The impnassron mrs caun gets rrom Iha Names 04 Nzpea\ is that whatever pan anne Plarnurra prayeas wwch was not allowed by ms Conn appears to mm are sumac: rnaneronms aopaax. aaakgrouna and Main ram Mlhl cas- m Vn or amunn mod, ma Developer] Gamuda dnvsmped a huusmg davalaprnarn called KK mus, wtncn comprises 0! 210 unit: an bungaluws ana semi-detached houses. ('KK mus‘) srn nnFGYqaI3IEqvtzkun.aaFwA -ans Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used m mm ms nrW\rrnH|Y mm: dun-mm wa murm WM u) e Receiver and Manager nr such emer person as we com deem on be appomlefl for K.KHxIls Managemenl Sdn and‘ includmg mu nolwmie-1&0 my take poeeeeelan and oumml L71 me propefly 01 KKHI\|s Menegemenx sun am wim a view we as winding up as n gning comarrh my oonven me pmpeny a1 KKHil|s Management sun am me money: (in) inspad at any masunabla nme books or dowmanls Ihal relate In me pmpeny in recewsrsmp and max ere In possession or under me annual or KKNi|ls Managemum Sdn and; «M Invssflgale and vapor! the wane cl KKHIIIS Mnnagemenl sun am to me Residents’ Aeeeeanan oi Kma Kemuning Hm: es |o now much monies have been recslved and whemav may were ullllzed m gaad fallh: up amnbune 311 me assets at KKHi|Is Management Sun and In ecwmence wnn the above mm, (vv) engage or dscharga empbyees on benev M KKHiHs Management Sdn and, 31 em mFGYq:GIEqvtzkuFuzaFwA -nee e.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm VII mune v-vrm (K) I‘) (H) (mm such ame< minus necessary or convemenl |u be done «er or in nunnectlon mm, or as Incmentm to me reoewuship‘ remuneranon Mm: receiver and manager or such other person as Du: ceun deem an to be boma by man oerxonm, in such prnpoflinn and In such extenl as may be aexemunea by this Court aller me vecmversmp um dlslnbubon cl assets by me Receiver and Manager much other person as «ms cum deem m, mums Managsmanl Sdn Bhd be wound up by me coun under Sections Aesmena (k)a1me compemee AA:| 2015, a oeumegmened rneellng lor Resvdens‘ Assaciahon of Kma Kemuning H\Ils (which man be dsemsd to be a mselmg called aceommg lo me cause 7 01 me Constitution at me Residents‘ Assuclahon er Kola Kemunung HHI: and «nose re ems who present and emmea In vote] \u be held mmn ms 11) monlh 01 me Ordarmadu he ' me com-regulated meenng shall discuss and dslamuna me following maueus an me meen.Ing' m general quzlmcahans/membership ai Assodaxian ol Kma Kamuning Hwlls, my «muons, rights, dunes and powers 0! manegemem of we xemumng Hm: under 27a Deeds no Mulual cevenams from Resuaenzs Asmiemon av Kora Kemumng Hm: Reemenw 32 em mFGYa:eIE~MzkuFuzaFwA we sew n-nhnrwm be used m mm e. enmmuly MW: dun-mm VI] muNG wrm (U) (P) (a) (V) my DL7sa\ of ms shaves L71ResIdenIs'Assoaa(lon cl Kola Kammunq Hun in KKH|||s Managsmsm Sdn Bhd; canoeuamon at such clauses M1\ch ultra virus the Constiluflon Residents’/Xssoclimon nrma Kamumng Hms dated 1 5 am, (V) mvanun of dunes, oblugauons. mncmona, rights. we intsresm. Dvuoeeds. and benefits as set out nu ma Deed of Mums! Covenanl daled 42.2an4 mm Hwwm-Gamuda Devempmant Sdn arm to Residents‘ Asssaiamm. o1Ko|a Kamunlng Hflls; IM «ms Honourable Cam! In ardar on me caning, oonvamng and canducl oi such meezmg Including KM apaovmem at me anawpausnn, reslmmon m a sum (which I: «o be assessed L7)/the Ranewerand Manager or such mixer person as this com deem an ap ' ad by ms Order) or such omercurrenlami nnn-cu:remnsse1s|o be made by me KKH||Is Managsmsm Sdn Ehd and/or ma Residuals’ Ikseaahon of Kola Kemunmg Hvlls |a Humm- Gamuda Develupmam Sdn land or such other persons as nus Cnun aaam ma In ma anamauva, eompensalran In be awarded m ms P\amnWS: an nrdev In wmpe\ H\oam—Gamu¢a Devempmem Sdn am: m sunsnaar ma mamkmanoe olcommon area to me Vocal amhonly or such other person as lhis Conn deem an a: N mFGYa=13IE~MzkuFuzaFwA ma Snr1n\nnnhnrw\HI>e used m mm s. mm-y mm: flan-mm VI] muNG pm {W} [951 (5) (H) (v) (W) a dedirauon mat the mainlanancs Vans and smklng lunds are Is he paid by me wane uwnavs Vn Kala Kemuning HMS lo we nawIy— appmnled pally and/av anmmlllse. V05: and damlvas In be guessed: mils owns apghrzlian he provided Var mduding but not hrmlad to panic: who ws name to pay me <x>sIs,w1’Hch may oompnse of me cumem and past members 01 me RA, dwreclors and srmrehuldets ol Kmms Management Sdn am, and such omsf peiswns who are responsible, m such propofllon and to what extenc. shah Alum MsgVs(nites' com awn sun Nu. EAJ\72NCvC6$ a1/2023 be cransvened to this Honeurame coun |o be dsall mm \n such manner and subject mmnnemirecuens as may be gwan by «ms Hanoursbla Conn: am sum mnner order or rslwsfs as «ms Honwame com daums m and Draper‘ inclunmg bu! no| lirmled la that me Pmlnmfs are at Imeny oo apniy As a wnsequenoe owns Cuurfs dedslun on me 1“ main issue, pvaysr |c)a1ma os mgemmg nne Mas|er Assignment Vs dlarmssefl wnn mus. The P\amWs mu pay me msls ev RM12,UUO (a ma 4"- Delendanl/Gamuda, subiact to euecem. As a consequence 0! «ms ceurrs aeusson on ma 2"“ main wssuee prayer (a) of the os srnissed wwlh cosh. :- syn mFGYq:eIEqvtzkuFuzaFwA -nee sew n-nhnrwm be used m mm e. nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm wa .nuNG wrm [991 As a ounsequanos olmls Court's deaslcn on me 2"-1 mam mus t1) (2) (3) (4) prayer my Ichaflenae against the RA‘s rusoiufiunsl of ma os ws pnmy imawed, and it Vs hereby aeaanau max me vesalulmns Na 2 and No 3 passed m me annua\ genenax msefinq av R nix‘ Assamatmn of ma Kamunmg Hm: held on 19 a 2022 are‘ msmar as they relate to purnonaa assignment nl lhe RA’: roles and vunmnuns and mum: ofshaves m »<><>-«us Management Sdn and, are mm and vans and 0! no eflact The Second Assvgnmem da|ad a.A.2a22 wman pupon.-ed (a swan me RA‘; rum: and luncnons under ms we In KKHII|s Management Sam and is hereby declared co be null and vmd and ac no am‘ a decwshon lhal KKHHIS Management sun BM nexus 2!! and any at us assets on lmsl lor me Residents‘ Assodamon of Kola Ksmuning mus [piaysr my oflha 0515 aflewed as avuuesam; xmus Management sun End as to menu: for all assem and pmoeeds as Ims1ee lo Residents‘ Assmauun olKola Kemuning Hillshypruparinga s|a|amsnl nlacoounl mussels and proceeds and nrzmavng Iha same In ma Rasidsnlf Assnciauan of Kate Kemunmg HUI: wllhln one (1; mm «mm ma date at \his Order [prawr 1a). (0 and on Is panly allowed an modified \arms as aluresam]; and :5 sn mFGYa=13IE~1vm<uFuzaFwA -um smm ...n.mn be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm is) a declarafinn me: me msmbers aims Resiflenls‘ Assodanan oi Kora Kemunlm Hills are, subiecr ia Dayrmanl bi admim5|m|iva mums aria sublet! be their iumirrrem oi payrrreni obimeiions in eewuarrce wriir me rules M «be RA.enm1ed(a lscsiya a may saeb bi Iha stalsmenl uf zoonum unde m (4) above from me Residents‘ Aswdaficn of Kora Ksmumng Hills [1nu]AlI me alhar islnsfs prayed ibr by rrre Pisrrrms ere arsrrriseed ms Cowl abes H01 find vahd er srmierri basis and reasbrrs ibr grsrrrirrg ms Pisrmiiw mirsr prayers In ms os bacauxa. (1) The gueruea porrrrrrunriy scheme in KK Hms has been approved by his ibcai abmbrrry and is a isgauy rsnugmsed porrrmurricy scheme recognised by new. (2) Thu eiiairs at me RA as rr sberery should be rrerreiea and managed by he sbeisiy itself and 5 up in ms sbbrery, eerrrrg in eeeoruerree wim Iha laws and as rum, in decide what is in me besl rrrieresi or Ms members as a male As ierrg as lha wraeiy ears and decides in abundance wrm me isms and ris rules, me milmmy in me sbersiy have to abide by Ina rrrarbrrrys peeisiorrs The cerrrrs irrrrneri inlervsnhorl wauld umybe cansidsmd whare me society acts against the laws or Rs ruies arm unly rb extent necessary to sum or prevem corrimverriion oi irre law er spews rules: (3; As far as me COUVI is Dnrloemedr ir rs rrbr irr me byereii rrrrsrrssr 01 a nbn-pram society in charge bi a guarded ebrrrrrrurrrry In sppoirri receivers em rrrmaaers, as such anpprmmerri errraiis rs N iuFGm:13IE~MzkuFi.aaFwA Nab: smbi n-vihnrwm be be... m yaw ms bflmnbflly mm: dun-mm be .nuNG wnxi subs|anlia| amounts cf (ass and expenses over aha above me secxexye hennex emeheee. Ila socvety D?! n; awn by Its pmperly resolved ueclewon wame la engafia external Dlmesskanals to manage parts of we rules and runcxvahs m 111: guarded oommumly, er a member nheueev by me/he« genemsuy wants an sponsor me oosts av apneinang external pmcessmhax to help m manlalng pans ov me socwalvs rules and mhehane, wt ws up |u mam to make such commercial dacwslun The Courtww nol ohser appamlmenl nl mews and managers hr 3 non-pmfil enemy m charge of a guaraea ccmmumly which vmmd have eflmfi M sxemng a heavy flnancxal bumen upon e hen-mm somely in charge are guarded communfly wnh meagre source ov nmuea vavenua; 14) As a genera! rule, (715 com does no| gram an order which vequlms me come dose or lnlenswe supemsiun \n In: immemennahun or ehvamemenu 01 such wurl under and which would havelhe eweu onhe ceun taking ovarlha conduct as nhe soc\2|Y or company: meeunge and afiavs Evan spamic performance 0! a oan|raL1 which requires one some Inxehme or subs(arma\ supervisiun aha adm Italian would not he wanted As such, we Omm me as me P|a1rmN5' prayers whnch seek me Court‘: dose lllomiowlq and/ur significant supen/Is\on ofme Dwueedmgs .n the Rue meenhge and am: (5) 1ha RA as a soaecy Vs lell la convene and eohuuu its own mesfings In aeeemanae wilh me am and its rules, and n s M [or «he cmm ofidals «:2 menu and eupemea nha conduct ufsuch meeunga w any member at ma saeiexy wame Io keep a audio- :2 N mFGYa=GIE~1vtzhuFuzaFwA we Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe used m mm a. nrwhuflly MW: dnunmnl VI] enum pm (5! 17! veuai reodrd ei me prneeedinge at me annuai rrieelirvgs in me eouety. he/she may no es unless such recording is exnressly pmhihiled bylhe rules dime sneiaey Ae ii is me imern and Dbiediv! or me purchasers wnn execulsd me umce iuaetnerwiin SPAS ai me beginning oflhe DNieclma( ine pmjecl men cnmpiered would be managed and adnunis1ered as a guarded onnirnunny. II is urnusi and viedunabie fwra rnirieniygreue cflllsmbersmcornalnlfva Cowl id seek is demohsh endiar deeirey ine beeie ieaiure or Ihe guarded community which may aii axpressiy and specificaiiy oavananted in enrnninn inruugn me mics. Much less could one purchasers oi one in unii M pvopeny nurpnns [0 seek in demolish and/or desimy me beeic feature oi me guarded nnmmunity w ' may an expmssiyend speemeeiiy wvenzanied in onmmun Ihmugh me was Many person does not want in We in e guarded oommunily wllh me eneiiiery peyrneni eniigaudn, niysne snnuid nol buy any prnpany unit in a prniem eeid wiin me guarded nommumly iaaiura. A nmveny purbhassr cannot gn me conlracl im a Quarded community min nundrede dieinerwcnaeere and men subsefluanlly cdinecoine caurnoiry id destroy and/er demolish the iunderneruei fezmre dune guarded cainrnunicy he signed ier. II n buyer changes Mslhar mind regarding living III e dueided 0l1lI\Vl\|1n\W,aNef having signed ine SPA and we win. guarded eemniurm ieaiuree iogetherwilh many Dlher buyers H1 Ihe same guarded community nroiecx, wen buyer can sen afl‘ his pmpeny um! In me guarded eernmuniiy and move in analhsl midermai as SIN d4FGYa=GIE~MzkDFi_aaFwA -rue e.r.i In-vihnrwm ue used m mm u. nflmneflly MIN: dun-mm wa eriurm wnxi (3! plqem wwncun guarded curnmumty features u «s ungusk and inequnamu, 2! lbs mslanoe Ma buyer ora rnznumyonauyars, m deslmy or demouah Ihe guamaa cnmmumly features wmch many W13! wye-s have ocnlrnaafl‘ pan cor and unxanasa to evvjaylha hsnsfilslhemlmm. No damages an awaraad lo me Plalnum here because (ha Plannmss appears In have been -n default -n paymg me\rpon¥ons ol conlnbuhons rm/ards me malnlenance and managemenl at me guarded oummumly. Nlhuuuh ms P\am|Ms as members ml the sociely has the locus stand/to ms and pursue this acflon cu sevefal of ma reliefs prayed for. the Plilnlifli‘ waun -n paying conmbuuon mwams costs at malnlam and managing ma guamed mmmunily are xnoonsxslem mm ma In|enl and objeclwa cH.ha um: wmch was signed logefiherwxm Ihe SPA. [1011 As this Ccurl has msagmed with quite a number 01 this Plamnfls’ arguments and mu ma.an«y 01 me Fla‘mIil\'s' numerous prayers have bean disrmssed hare. me Ptaumm shoum name awarded cam. ohm: sun Concluslon [102] In nondusiun. Ihis Ooun on 12 Odcber 2023 made me renewing orders‘ (1) (1) Item ta) flsmm Suman Pemula (Iammran 1) unolak: llgm (:2) dakam Saman Pemulz Uampirzn <1 mum dengan kus; n sw mFGm=GIE~MzkuFuzaFwA -um smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 13) W 15) (3! (7) Sebahagian item (In) uatam saman Pemwa dmenaman‘ dan deklansai amenkan bahawa resolusv-cvsuduai No 2 dan Na 3 yang auutmkan aatam mesyuaral auunsl tanunan Farsatuan Penauauk Kola Kemuning Hulls mg dtaflakan ma 19 3 2022 aaatan tarha|a| dzn max ean dan lidzk berkual kuasa sqnuhnya ianya konnn manyerarmak peranan-psranan dan mngs.-mngsi aan syer-aye! Pa-satuan Iersebm klDadaKKHms Management Sdn arm: Dektarasl bahawa suratan Sarah-hak benankh 3.4.2022 yang xcnanya rnenyeran-nak paranan-neranan aan mnast-tungst dart syensyar Fersaluan Fanduduk Kata Kevnuning Hm: kepsda Kxmus Managamenl Sdn and avatar. Ildak san flan tmak berkualkuasae Dsklarast bahawa KKHiI|s Management Sdn aha memegang semuz nana atas amanah hag: keparmngan Fsvsaman Fenduduk Kma Kemunina Hms. KKHiIls Management Sdn ant: hendaldah kemukakam aksun menganal semua asl-as! dan hastl sebegal pemegang arnanan kapada Fsrszluan Punduduk Kala Kamuning Hm: dengan unenyeuiakan salu uenyatx akaun bagt asset dan nasnuan rnembekalkannw kapana Palsaman Penfluduk Kata Kemtming Hma dalam (smpeh sa|u(1)bnJ\an din tankn pennvan tn»; Deklavast bahawa kssamua ahli-ahki Fersaman Penduduk Kata Kamunvng Hms‘ lenakluk ksvada pembayavan caj pemadbitan den Denunaban onugasx Pembsyatan menumt kaedah-kaedah M: an mFGYaaGIE~MzkuFt_aaFwA -nan Sam ...n.mn be used m mm .. nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm VI] .nunc Wm! [3] [pl [10] W] The Develnper enlerou mlo me sale arm Purchase Agreements ml the purmaaers ol KK Hills, lncludmg one aelea 4.2.2ou4 (‘SPA’) mm 111: Plalrlnffs‘ who eurrenlly remain me leglslelefl owners and reeluarru olme Land and Fmpany lrr KK Hllls. [Enclosure 3 page es pamgraph H enclosure 3 pause 96 - <24]. Slmulunncusly mm me SPA. a Dead or Manual covenarra 1‘DMC') was also erlwad inlo lmne Developer lo be in errarge M In: oomrol rrlanagemenl aamlruslrellorr or me comman area and facllllies lo regulale me day—k>-day use and elljoymsnl of the property‘ cemmon area, lvlarlagemsnt and aumlrllalrallm ol KK Hllls urml such servlaea are lakarl over by me aumomy lsncloaure 3 page 43 paragraph 121. see me we n(pd1pagas125—I63 ollanalpepre 3 Krwllls weslully dsvelopad and ma vacanlpnssesslon oflhe Fmpeny was dsllvered lo we Flilrlflffs on or around znos me plalrmlls slanad muvlng my; me Property In or alvund zoos [Ervelpeme 3 page 44 pavagraph 13] The local alnhalily Majlls laarloaraya snarl Alaru Ihrouuh ll: leller aalea 5 Apnl zaps appmvsd me Developers aevelopmenl as a salsa comnlunily: paragraprr 4 ol MESA‘: laller dale: we a zeal lo Ravlnanaran. Enclosure 5 page 12 When KK Hllls was firs! oompleleo, KK Hllls was managed by lrre Developer mrougrl lls agents. The Developer eplamea permlaslorr lrom local eulhorrtlea «or KK Hills le be a gatad oornmurlrly on or amund 2005 Thus was ovenaxerr by a lurlrlar cormlllonal approval granloe In me leper fmm snarl Alem Cl|y counell lo me RA oaleo 2512022 [Enclosure 3 pages 4445 palaglzphs 15- 16 Endnsule 5 pages 12-14 Erldrzsura 5 pages 3145] 5 am mFGYq:13lEqvtzkuFl.aaFwA Naps Smnl I-vlhnrwm be or... a mm has pflmnallly MIN: dun-vlnnl wa nFluNG Wm! persaman, masimmasmg herhak menenma sesalman penysva ikiun yang umyaoaxan dalam Ham (5) danpada Fersatuan Penduduk Kola Kemumng Hulls‘ my Lavrulawn Item dalzm Saman Pemula (Lamplran 1) dnolak‘ (9) Flamul-P\aIlW hendaklah mambeyar kos guaman sewmlah Rmzuuo kepada Delendan Keempax, tsnakluk kepada akzkalundan (10) mas penman has guaman smara Plzwntfl-P\am|W dan Defendan-Delendan Femama. Kauua aan Kemga. Dated In-s 12m December 2:123 snuwwu xunsmv sngnoa |l"|W"|'|":W"‘l TEE GEOK uocx nu... ma JUDGE ,.,,m‘,"§m,,,,,,,_,, HIGH comm or MALAVA AT $HAH ALAM (NCVC not To me parues‘ snhI:\Inrs' 1. Fur lhe P\aIn|Ms Foo Hang Chuen Joycelyn Guh Messrs man Fannarship (Kua|a Lumpun 2 For me I", 2"‘ 4. 3'“ - Brenda cum om Wen ne«enuams Messrs Meng Wax a. A.ssocia|es (Shah Nam) 11 m mFGYa:G1E~MzkuH_aaFwA mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! For me 4" Defundanr Pnsma cnang Messrs Ranlll swan A ‘(son 1KuaIa Lnrnwrl .2 sw mem=e:zmmmza;wA «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [12] [13] K1 ‘J [15] U6] Dunng me perlod of me Deve\ope(s management aver KK HiHs‘ e grgup of owners mcmdung Kc Lim were sell»/my ecnmnizmg nne Davalopefs management e1Kr< mus [Encmsme a page 45 pangraph 17] on 1a.z.2n11, Resmems‘ Assaaalmn cf Kata Kemuning Hius one RA‘) was eslabhshsd and registered under me Soclanes MI 1966 me presem vmoe penreve av Ins RA lmzluder amongsl mners (ab Frank Team who is me cunen| Presmem gr Ihe RA, and snarenpmer arm dzremorodlha Managemern Cumpany: and (pr KC um, wfm is me eurranx vlpe President av me RA and shzrshmdar and mrecm or my 1-‘ Devenaanx-company [Endosure 3/ pay paragraph 15 Enchzsurl 3 pages as, as, 95]. Ana! me RA was set up. me RA earvexy hawsed mm me Developer on ma management pi KK we on penalr 07 me wwnars The RA exec mnduclad genera! meexings and L7(hargamer1ng5lo aggress vssues m KK Hm: wnh homeowners. [Errclvsuua 3 page 45 paragraph 19}. Havmg acknowledged xne exmenoe 0! ma RA as e hamsawners‘ asspaaunn, on or amund 9 7 21114‘ Developer nulrfied xne Intended Handm/sr m the managemem ol KK Hills to me RA in me year 2015 rlrneneeu Handovef‘), which was ubjanled by some Ianduwnsls tmuudlna me Plaintms) [Enclosure 4 page 77] on var around 23 12.2014, Ihe Developer Mhfied me awnsrs m KK Hms thal wt snau hand over us dunes‘ ouliunupns ene funminns as 5.91 pm under me DMC nu ma RA on so a 2:115. However‘ Inns not nappen s syn mFGYqaeIEqvtzkuFuzaFwA -use sarm n-nhnrwm be used m mm s. nrwhrnflly mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm.‘ I‘ 7] W] [M :20] [Enclosure o page 52]. Flam July 2n2n unxll December 2029‘ Gimuda and me lugave nouns aims aeslpnmennu me resluenls mm Hills Tne sam rmlioe was given by way ol mulhple annmmoememsr norms‘ and a town hall gamenng (see palpeges so — 63 pl Endosule 11). Glegary lolned as a ppnlnllllee memhar of lna RA lor lhe lenrr 2:215/2019. A|I1laHlme_ Frank Tsh was also are presidam ul me RA Gregary did no| seek realeellnn after one lsml [Endosura 3 page as paranravh 23] on or avuund 29.5.2020‘ me Developer once agaln irlfomled the RA that me lnlanaeu Hzrlduvsr was lnlended |o pe cpmplelea by Navamber 2020 [Enclosure A pages 53 - as]. on 7.a.2o2u, the Management Company wa: lrlcomcratad under me cpmpenles Acl 2016. ll seems lnel oemplernls were tamed by same land awnars llnclumng Gregory) to ma oavelpper mar Ihe RA allegedly lacked lrensparency as may allegedly were excluded (mm some groups anrxlrx melr lexle/messages were galelea and/ur lney were at one lime banned lmm lne group [Enclosure 4 pages as . 104] Records show lnal subsequerlhy csregary was relnsleneu n ma wnalsApp group and me rszsun given by an alias bearerwu: met llre aalelran was an owerslghl or due to inadvarlenoe on 1.12 2o2ur the Developer enlered mm a Masler Aselgnnlanl wlln me RA to usslgn lle ngnls. dunes and upligzllpns under lhe we lo me RA (-1-l lmpugned Asslgnmenr) [Enclasma A pages 159 - 163]. see Maaler Assignmenl al pdfpages 70 — 100 of Enelusure ll 7 sn mFGlqaelEqvmruFl.aaFwA -we s.n.l ...n.mn be used m mm r.. pflmnallly sun. dun-mm wa arlum wnxl [21) sinca ma 1:4 llvlpognsd Asslpnmsm, me RA managed KK Hllls unlll me Managenlelll Company «wk ovsr Ihe management. (22; Ey lauamalad 2d 111.2022 lha local aumpnly gnarned specmc delnlled approval (of Warned onmmunily al xx Hills [pages 31 — as at Enclpsula 5] [211 Ndllpe pl 11'“ AGM ollhe RA was issued vla emails In me mampals ol ma RA‘ and HVSVE wu nu snsfific llam pl agenda on pmppsal [or assignment pl RA's rlgmsl benswul luncllpns and pbllpalldns ln raspsd olmanapamanl and admlrllslrallon pulls guardad communlly to lrla Management Company ur anytaddy alssr see pigs 52 of Enclosure 5 [24] Shunly before ma dala pl AGM of me RA, me 1-‘ Plalnhfl was tsmmzralily suspended as member by Ihe RA pendlng an Inquiry lnlo allapad lmwonducl. As a rusull M such suspenslan‘ ma 1“ Rlplnllll was called «mm allandlnp the 11'“ AGM. see pages 55 — 51 of Enklosure 5 [251 Dunnp ma annual ganaral mseling an ll2.:l.2n22 auanded by 39 members, lne RA by malpnly M as vmes passed the lollumng purppnad Iesnluunns (ll up assign ma mles and rsspcrlslhllmeu under the DMC hum ma RA In lna Managamam Cmrlpany lnasolullon Na, 2 al pages as 47 or Enclosure 5), and SN d4FGYqaGIEqvtzkuFl.aaFwA -um s.n.l luvlhnrwm be used M valw u. nflmnnflly MIN: flan-vlnrll VI] .mm mm [23] [271 [291 [29] [30] (2) ma-ansieiand release shamsoflhe RA|n sineiviituals incliieing Frank Tali and xc Lim ['Rasoku|lon No 3 cl ‘Mm AGM') lencleeiire 5 pages as - as]. The RA subsequently on 54.2022 zxewtzed a second assignment d0curY\an| by wnien the RA piirpmed Io assign tn: ngnia, itiilies and elalloatlena under me we to the Management Company 1'2"-I lmpiignaa Assignment") Erlclasure 11 pages 12: » 153} The Management company tnen pioeeees to manage xx Hills and eplleet maintenanee enaigee amt sinking fund bases on Ihe piiiponea isslgnmerlls. The Management company also epeialea gated ane gualdad eominiinity serieme in xx Hllle [Enclosure 5 pages 12 —1A]. The RA avlei Inquiry leuntt en 7 7 2022 Ihal met“ Plaintilrs eenpum was lptally Imbecamlng and visa lallen Shofl in me eiandana expected of a mambef cl me esseciatien put inetely pe ed nim wilh a admanrlinn ane iepiiinanil. The I“ l=lnintilrs membership was lnlea as from 7.7.2022 page 94 meneloeiiie 5 The Plninmis ietiisep Io pay me maintenance charges ane Sinking nine since 1 12 mo [Enelpsiiie 5 pagss 26 - 2:]. me unpaid inaimenanpe leee inipeeed upon me \“ F1airmflwus Rmailzsw as at a si 2022 pages in - as alzneesiiie 5 Trip Management Company nreught a claim yiee snali Alain Magistrates‘ Own civil suit No BA-A72Ncv(>s9-in/2u2a ('Sui| 59') elainiing mairvtananua etiaiges and sinking fund against Ihe Plainmls January 2023 [Enclosure 5 pages lm — 112]. 9 sin MFGYQ:l3IEqvEkDFLEBFWA -nee s.n.i In-vlhnrwm be in... e yaw has iniimiin MIME dnunvlnnl vla aFluNG WM! 131} \n mis Ongmaling Summons. nne Plahmfls uek various dec\ara|ary reners and rewanea or ancmary Orders. Mlln Inn: to he decides [321 on a bmad basis, Iha me ssues as ea daaded In one prasern case are: (1) wnemer me aswnmenx av nne Developers matmsnanea and management runcnons, name and oeugamns (‘me Meacer Asswgnmenfjlolfve RAwas mm and bmdlng uponlhe rasidems mdudinq me Pwannme, (2) meme: me RA’s assignment 0! me RA's mamsnanoe and management iuncuans, ngms and ebuqanione to me 1-‘ Defendant-company was valvd and bmdlng upan me resvdenlx mchmlng me P\aIn!M$‘ (3) wnemer me Waxmxffs are ennnea xe ma rauafs and ramemea prayed our or pan memo: 1‘Muin issue: wllelherlha nulnnmuntanhn Do loner‘: malnllnanco and managumlnl aunmens, righls -nu ohllgafinni (“the Menu Anlgnmnm") In an RA wan valid and binding upon cm r ' |I'Ic||1d||lfll|'II Pmnmn Cnndlllonal aenuu pnnespu [as] In ms present case‘ we Plammfs argue max on me pnncipla that only banems and ngme can be asswgned um ne eumen orouugauen can be assigned an be asswgnad, me Mailer Asswgnmem eaxee 1.12.220 m an mFGm:13IEqvtzmn.aaFwA ‘Nata smew n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms nrwhuflly mm: dun-mm wa mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-A52NCvC-323-07/2020

PLAINTIF LOW PEY YEE DEFENDAN WONG CHIN LIM

Alleged oral agreement in respect to commission payment - monetary claim made against the Defendant pursuant to his breach of this agreement – Defendant contended that there was no oral agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant - “non-payment” issue - the Companies Plaintiff works for did not pay the Defendant’s company - whether there was an oral agreement regarding payment of commission in between the parties - whether commissions were indeed paid prior to this claim - whether the issue of “non-payment” between companies has no relevance to the Plaintiff’s claim for commission payment - the probative effect of the contemporaneous documents - contemporaneous nature of the emails and “WhatsApp” messages with the key events in this case - veracity and credibility of witness - conflicting and inconsistent testimony by the Defendant as opposed to the oral and documentary evidence - tested against all the surrounding facts and contemporaneous documents – whether Defendant’s version is rendered inherently improbable

15/12/2023

Puan Yong Leou Shin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=235277bd-9867-4539-8841-63b3f081232c&Inline=true

15/12/2023 09:07:48 BA-A52NCvC-323-07/2020 Kand. 52 S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N vXdSI2eYOUWIQWOz8IEjLA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal BA—A52NCvC—323—D7/2020 Kand. 52 15/12/2023 u9:a7-as m we SESSION CDURY m sum um in ms sum as ssuuaan DARUL sum: ssrwzsu Law rev me (No. KIP- unzu-1n-51 5:1 PLAINTIFF worm cum um pm xn-- I1nnn1-u~5:s'n ..|vEFEm3ANr §1mLmLL9.LuLD.aM§u.I 5515»: run mm A ).!J.E9.P.UL!|9.N 1 rm acuon V: emanaud Yrnm a monelnry clmm made aglmll m. Dnflandanl vmsuanl m Ms mm Mun waged ma! agvaemcnl wilh ma mamm m Vulfladln mmmm paymem 2 Aharmfl mm, W: cmm nllnwod mm. 3 dam: Vn parl and mdevud Var coil to as new by the Delendanl nu ma Pmmm 2 mssansuau, nemaam men an mean. 5 zA|.|.:uLEAm 4 Thu wmmm w. an wmm-mm Exscuuve V7! Damnn * Mmaqammlsdn amucompanym 1129257-w), MakarSuburRewumes sun and Klumpany Nu vszsnn) and mm Subur AV sun BN1 (Campnny Na vussamm mm a. Avmtz sw vxas\1evouwu1wuxa\E;LA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm ID 1»; Dafarvdlmvmn wu m. wmmwuammam mm the mmnn Ind mrmmn (ha Pmmm Inn m Dahndanl VI an mm :71 . company known as snags: PuwarMnmvnar‘I1CumPfl"Y Na anzemsnwt Iml ma Cumvmy I: m Ina vmdll av urpandlni ks bushes: mm, m Dfienduu -mm Var IM wnurrs -smumnm m rsmmmand cnmmcu tau um. Oumpiny Amxdlfliiy‘ ma Defmdanl men pmmism In any the P\a‘mD‘fl 3 mmmits\m of fimuoo on our uch work dun: hum he wnlncu and also lmmar «mm nah Mvmenl mew by ma sum» my Macmnery Wem me Campames (huvnnamsv mm no as ‘am aer-am.-1') wmn Ina mmnvmmdalmn Ind Innlamx UHM Fm-um‘ mmm. wn Flhrulry zme,Ivoo12>uumvan\as known is Avenlx Mmgemuu Sdn am: my Mm: Subur amum Sdn Bhd Enlarfl mm rental Iweemunls mu. Swans: um Machmuy he NI: mamflnuy urvxas «on. (NI aumpany m mun agnemmfs man be refavved :4 Pass 22 as so of Emma a [Fan A) Upm mm: the mnlnm. mm mm camnamos Mve um um Suecass Pwmev Mlcmnary luv mix mum: and mmrlflnn Rupaclwa uzvmam was made (or am Vrlvumns mm by me Succssl Pane! Mammy eompevw vmuuhyma DdurmlrI| mm mm: lama Mme mane-1 mmmmm Dflvmanlm ma raw-mu Lllvn cm ueuuuam Iflugud Inal wmvvlwmwi vuuod hamonol bun mm mm m mgmenns wan ohlnmd seam: m M: 12> cumnlmen Yhe Defendant mma to W m. P\a.mnll any 1ubIIquanlmmm\uvmu_wmr)1 haw wan m. P\l\m1Mn\rm\ile a Inga! woceedma Iisxnsl Ina Dslemdanl £A!Ll§£AEEl§ rm cam Pavuvs marked and «mama mm com ave as loHows a) sum 5: staaaxnw lundlt A sm yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm s :17 smug c Isl you knew rnmavmw. mmuhle MM much mun-y. lhe nun u you M ms knvw mu. how much mm wan mp yw mm up mu. an, mu an can mm up sum: warm the men mumm- s Tha mm um use um my may‘ x mu mu m m yw mun mam wns .n ngvuzmam band an «m. wmaulvp mnvarswon, mm was an agvumcm to hay ma plalmm mmnsm do you sine? J x dmayree. 5 Mr wuw‘ Va\srJ nu: am you max M evldevme name the bowl today‘ for lms pmeeeaw-vw. not «my. Imus 1m|meva \. in mum .11 mi! =g.m.m bulwuu ynu and mu mairmfl pgm mmswm J : riugmt 5 And. Mr wang .».n mu m m Wu um bum on mu mu am agvanmern you haw brsaavod me nval aumamenl brnwoen yuu and ms P\a7n|W. vau Bursa mm M: or mm .1 n dispgvee :42 \n we use ul you vu cm v am 54.. am 5 can mu) nun nu m wls new In: “rm n [I mflndlnglhltlhg mun. md ~ wn-lug; muggl ggdund m. Pu: Iv .. n :1 (I7 ma wnmempemsous name M Ma tau“: and‘ wnmApp- mus!-Iva mm (M kw was m «ms cast I my on sm Norma vaam JCA's as my |JdyiMp men M57 Mymenl 'v1 m cmm alN1Da\ case at Gun nu Sdn mm v. HI MoIIdNoorH/ Ylkuh 1. Or: mm A cu :14. :1 no, “mum. in sw .x4susvouwmmmz.m um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm .. nun‘ wn-n mnmtmng 1|/ldunal m ,...m.u bltbn . mu; :2 1. w may or an. own not Mir 1» mini: mm. "mm on . bulnnct of prubnmllltabmnll .1” Incumbnnlllldupan Imcomnolnouultmn n ma tvnlunto con rlnvous mumm ur omuwmu all mv-n ha. in lnhlnnzncnllnlurned m-uu-rye dlxcrednedme evldeacnulme .w-nun, -mp:-4 n.. ma...“ am. mwurmcnl: wnulln-lnudfy um arsua-ma ma cnnlomponnlous mum-ms marry. w. -r can M and .mu.. ».n.urm.no4:..um.m.mu mm. .n»..rmmm. mmmumuimgm nu mum. um Icclallng Mu nlflwldum’ ¢vv'dIW-‘E. wniwfied :1 mm: M: canlullpwrlnawus dummlnlt 1/Id . um. wh-mu men documomi tuppon m. Mfibonwhm-' an! rutimany. we say ms nu: evuuntlcrv eternlse 1: must n:rucMH‘nnImu.Itblnm-mblnd mm. r-rpandnnt: wuumnliylng ma mm mu n-pp-ma olnhtocn rem -yo mm the coammmnms dncuminlx x mm mm. m Inch documlnt: mu.Luv.1.1 my fluwmamary wmanca. npllzlafly comlamporanlmli was‘ ‘s Gsverzlw mam mam. Ihan max mam VI! SlmivIlM:nv.FlFPl[1FB1Il mu m at 125.127. nn appux hum Mmnyma (M Fwy cmmu nmrmad the Fnd-m! Conn‘: dx\s\on m an upwon yven by Luld Dwmuck as Mews — ~ m rum: c.m.q.m¢ 2.. ;..ma/-mow: rvasnnlnv on em PM u an an my .1» m..mu.4 um u.spn- m cnrrfltcvulwuluvidunnu mm un'u_m.mmn_aum nu: ma BI-rchul Eric: has hurt us in run balaru m. :.....a.m..n...4 bun uldpunetu-lly us-.x.m,..u. . sum 4 mm pm cum iooond instzlmmt which vn: mid mm mnmlvs 1.2.. In-lrLon1:Ivlp:, mum, to nu! m n ......my 2.: nnvu: m. tusmam for mu nmmg an»: by Iht rm": com um um um mg. mu ~m..4 a mum Muss Fauna’! mm m nay ma Wchusn me m m mu puncmlfy. Wen Ilpmud mm matonabh I.1oub4, could not m w :2 5w vxas\zevouwu1wuxa\E;LA mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. mm.“-y mm; mm. VII nF\uNG pm :2 :5 amount In fruudarenmfz ma aw-.a Vanuatu dvlutilla mgmmapmpnuaa mu unauuwun 34042”-) was uuunfinds In-NV»: wamwa mummy Mm "game lhe axhlmn ohuch an anal ag-umam vs Wu“ canammau by Ina mulanll m (M whatslnn wnvurnaflun Fulfing mlcll ma wvanaapp canvarsanun. were «a nnulhu mmmwary ducummwy mama Dmduwa by m. mm in mm. In: annmlnu m mm mv lgumum am: am: um ya: man aammaawan plyrnunh wsvs mam maaa to ma Fhsntifl uurxunm In ma mil 1xi'Bau|n| Pmmwl mmied man every ma vmn/I mmmm wm mm she returned n m mr mmm am 1... she nu ma... lh|llV|5Nqll5(l1M| am: Inswav no 1:; Int! msmeitzar Ihn Delrndnnl mam Ms mum on H In mnmaaae mm pnymunl of mmmmian was mad: Comma! «mm naaanaam mauangau IN: mm M Mdnnca by urgumu mm ma swamnaus appear at! lhe rncovfi am do an menu xa (ha Dalendanl and um Pb? mmm an a namuvinw axvmlm nrwu mu. Ocuvsm mm Dutervdanl Vurlhur wnlavnsd max ma aam wfllten an me man book an ml srmw ma year and heme 1: av rm was to n-me my fans m issue wm. launch mo lgree am. mm aamamm :5 um um mu mgmad he aauax vwuvd am m new me man that u us acluufly a mama mm Mm wamwa note-s av veumd u 4. -ulnevvdc and «n a smhbh hack us mum WIKVV mu mm m du1aH,lLwoa|d mm In an Inn pmud In be Hus Apxn lmm ma; Im: mm Md: Amt ma mamnn run mnlflly agvled max am am rm remrd MmnIe1m:\m1\m: (he Year or am RM in 1mm an the «mum in mean: me number mnnma a monetary Imnunt Man 571: was uvuaxamvusd ma wammv Iaelmed as ra4\9m(sean111o1nmeaoVWwssdIna) s om. ma fiafame cmamw ms: nww asm yw m vsgams Ia Dane 211 and 27: may run RM. nu an m N: ysr. vaa dhawue Du ym wunnn zxphm «amen an VIngAnl,\m\nksh|md::yma huisn n lmm 1; sm ax4s\1svouwu1wuxaIE;LA «ma am n-nhnrwm a. a... w my a. aflmnaflly mm: dun-mm vu .mm Wm! as :7 s Vevywd S<zvy.I'hnnKyuu.Vauigmnd DnyouwIn|1uIxp\=\Mum1ufl J mum. mum on mu. .\....n.... um no mum nemums amumannhallnu Flnmmlmuma mu . runnvnmna amen la pmva W5 .; m wammv ma cheny mum Ihal me Ddandanl sun-a bdluva nay, m armhetwnrds‘ shswmesssd mm hurown syn mm ma nmnaam put flawn M: x1gn:mve:\nlhavamrd book I do not mm an m<pul‘s Mdenoevl new new Vat vmnun had amnsa ma mama: pvubnxrmyhul m mu mgm me am: :2! mm W: lmaefme mam m Iva Dd-mint m ms umuuan: 6-mud my me maker 04 Ihoie smnalums Ummmnamy. Ihn Ddennanl memy mm u yet Drudmx nnlhvng In suwmn m. dsmil ImheFedera\com‘xmsenl |...=n.....,..v. cram .;u........u-. Enculnr 1, SL ;u.....».s. mu (u..=....a;) 5 Ann! V4 3-cum n.m.m San Bhni mm scu m, H\s Lemma Jeflrey m, Fm avnhad ma ummwa mi .m..m.....= u...m...=.....m.. .. aununu ma 1»: s..ma.uv.mma-ne mm." DY mow m we «mm Ms: 101 m mm m. Vndhan E\nflhnEv»aenceA£| m.m...m.nuw M. Iulandtflzofiourivxdlncu Ac1asMvwr -n .5 alsu w-N In em m mom that mm It an eswmar drslmcvon barweon mm 0fDI|3DV'anI1'mlu: «proof: i wnoh mama. y.¢¢.»anm.m.m mm.m.armnr.nm ou/Inconnuaus mm vl 'nI «mm me msgnmmm. V Clvanclumma AIR um st: «:51 sum. cl P'0D«'his two dmmclmeanlflfll» nam-rm (/7 ms burden ovpmuras a manorol law and nrmamgs, and rm mg bumen a( war as a mailer or muuna vwdonn Sntvun rm UVMH Ev/dams Au mm mm ms lame! and S-noon H720! the Evmunm Am wan me my ‘me Iim remam: wmm am In: munasnm In a slam appllcaflotv, tnsralnve, m. Damn olpmot nu ma rim sense, ouiamfr has on me nialmsnl Hrreexammes mmenana nu witmasx u my, .mnm..m....=. m1-am mnugmnlllmpnnclpltuuloul aauvn ilmmdtobl .mauw-. msmwgmgan am Ionhnsarlnpmvo .4 sw yxaswzevouwmwuxawina um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 39 on more dmummneel. ff Inn which .li ul 9!! =n...,..,.n. n: m. tnmuwv gnnn;_mxm.mm_m.u;nnun:.nnn_mn_« we :11‘ ..n...un.4n.....nnu..:n...=.nn.n:.unnn nMum( lfllllfllndn onthatbnnt. tomaksaluslswavdrtwuulirhuxnaunav Ind lhauglv Iha Inga/human, -ma nuvdnn .5. m.nna«ornaw.m:pmn1»ogs -numm cvvvstar-4o4vlIvueIa)vrvanL1!nebnu\1an assmanxarovadduana avfdunca charms: oflsn mm: mm n...nom.. cl-nm penm Dmsilsuu’ To my mm. Plnnmmhnd moved on Brim: Inn by Drofludng . mm Bonk mm Mars nm Dutervdavnri uqnnannnnu, ma axnanam ur nun. back a. cmmtmvll-d Vunhs by |'J:4endnn|'s M cvnderlue nnn mg Wnnunvb an-noqnn. n..n....n nnnmunn and (M Hanrnlm nn mm m had rnnoru min was msvnuunad ma /umnndad Pnanmnn n» my me book Yon mm In Ingn TM: mun ns 01 the mnudmm vnmmn Iflavanca nude In In buokm mu mnlivnpzxlry wrnvanaflm Mum look plan an an. mama! nnm numn added nm vmbalnve name on sum aoanmenn Snna vnmmn had uaablumfl Inn was saw Datendavnl ingnev mm dn>mmsnL mm urnlus and nnnnnnn line sifinalun: Vx shmln In he ublzmld by ma m m mpvuernlahmn man ugnnanm ns nrmrvauabh w\dsrn::MDs1m\dnrnl's acxnnnmeuwmannnu me Dsymmmafoammnasnm made In In: Plinmm Tm arm: on Woo! ns now sum ta IM Delendam in man mm on: Iiwmnnva: nppeflmvg an Ins mm!!! bank in: m|m: mu mama Annnalmn WEI! ma. by an. Flanrnlm nnnsnua nusn Io ianrn uvwsl an/mhmem is snnbmmed by Ina nanmed mnnnssn for line Deleminrni nn ns me In: nerxmv wmu anlcue me In! mnm pm >1 mu cam mrnudlrs man nn ni mmmbom and nocassary M line oenennaannn no umum emu taesnnmony minim me dmunulanms shnulfl mg ummn wan to annnmga ovvvbu|mu wnarnwscnanm Hnwoevern onnnannm hnsmsvadnvnnalmal mm nngnnunnnna banana In mm, me Delendarnl dnd nal ‘Ed my evndenue In xuvvun ms unnlavvlnnn TM gmunnanus 17? mm mama nnxnk nx hmlnv -nhanud uman mo anus uziad In In: hock nu lam wvraivcrnds or an lwrnd awed wnlln line wnnenn L71 ma ns SIN vxasnzevouwnawuxalinm “Nuns s.n.n nmnmrwm .. used m mm n.. nflnnnnflly mm. dun-mm VII .mnc v-man Whstslvv wnvsmuumv The Defawaanfs mm um mauve: am»:-an Ihwwad am he axkad ma Fhwnm to Mug akwa nu ‘bank or Imnlng now wnmm nlymem hr mmmlsshn was nude Sea mm nu. am: am avldarvmi m Whntxlvp mlxugu mvvsspund wnh m. dunes wvvun um.‘ um mam rwordedln swam boekanflDlWIen|olmmm\ss\on wn; mndohnfl was 277 <7! mm xwning hm .\.u vmlad huh 'hn\m mm no ugnaxum Maud nnxt to u we suomuo aoox ms: or wmrsma ussuass EA§:z17_I.z1! 1 mmmma am-311-osmmnva ’ ’ o.4.nu.m.-«uaun-anon-ymyaounow-u mam u look. uu ac-ma ‘Dekodanr 2o mmmmn‘ iflmmuhe lvnmeknr man 2 «Mm/2m: ziawsma/2015 Hawmll. mm M mach u lexl me :1 M101/2017! 7 7 : 7 Puwmll u imam mm um: mach’! Maw 10 mm Dalunduru Ya move 10 mm, Takel mm: A zslw/2013 319 —25IuW2n7Is 7 7 (D-um-m um I-vlnlmm w my nlnnmi mg). Duhmi-nl‘ um 1104 ms. my am m.umn.- wn-A mx Dvhndlrvl .-awn hook 5 W11/2015 aau—n4I1zr2o1n anm/zms Dafunnnl mm wha| hm: u :| amu- ‘ wumupassuamemewm 335707/01/2019 sm yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm xi :2 W ‘ Dflennavnr I 51w wamnw W mi-mam will u me W s zum/zme 336 7 [fig 213 — ' 7 22/03/2015 290 5 1270472015 2» u % ‘zu ¢om..a.m nm a mu m bung ...n.... am). Mom-nu my man! mm Avon! chop a. M. 10 31765/2am * m ’ H DBIGMZOIB ZED 7 7 7 «2 21/05/2013 am 13 D2/07I2\31I 303 7 14 II/BURNS 306 ‘ 15 25/MI201! '7 IS moelzma Dollndnm: M... ,.........._ mm, »..,..x ‘ mu m Duendanl Mad mm to em». um Inc mm -:m- he\u\d Pmmxlnu bung was m ran mm m ’invu\ue‘. um um P\amIlWs saw. book umm, durvw Crmlvéxamlnaflon m. Duendanlvas mm Ia . mnmnvn m.mm y... um u was new», man nleiny ahawx lam he In «um um wMd'\lW01De' mu‘ m Aumnony man In tam: ‘now my med lot mugs a. whsfly umename an“ r. Ivrfllnammng czwnoggmmj Q; 5- DIN mm mun in ny mm m mu ulalhl wold lmolcfl J: s-y. am pm. 3: on (lack nan: nnr-M man. an pun. Nwnv mum, u. nfur m m Pl]: :0: n. um pflllnn you Kw-a mm. m. In-| MM yum uy n sm yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 4: Vnvahzn ohlvlit Ilnbrar sum AV sun Bhd mm? mm no um um -Ir--my: 4. v. 5: SA new no man book? 1: v.. rm mun nmnd mu whan mo Ddar-dam was mnrm nawsexamhed to sm hrumvmalIrams‘1wvo/nunalmuskouil/vaP1a:mMtubr»h;7' hemxumlymidc wfnvuna m plymlul vuuwm mud try 0!: cummwes Vmlead at women, (Ms mnmny many uxuradhaad Ms ¢.ar1\enesI1mmy ms mu mmnv nbservsfl me dmulannr of ma Ddlundxm mum make no my finding: Uxceul mm ma Ddhndam m M a mum: Mmssu and ms anemm m ubswve me (mm W: mu my name live day mu u . mam cum: MI mm a 5x mg‘ gnu: 192 unwmds s New wn-n n and you a quuliurv m vagards u m now, mam J Yes 5‘ Am: m my Ian an 1 an mm"; mo um: I: In an run: 211, hundh a mm u m« n1 um. um menllon at my was mm. 1» on. s: w. w... mama. mu mu up your bank‘. mm mkx ‘:|vn now And I and you nu-um tn. -mu mm In W. z11,you um ma. you um um Involn J‘ v... 5. So, you luv‘: u. your vurulnn, an mu vvmlllon In on whulupo :- Ilwoln-I7 J- vu s: m. wm, new I'm mi-mun yw to man. 5 mm. page 41 mm 2:: s Nuw w. ans rem m al\Ihavvvowu14n me am» can ym. show In: mun Much mm: yuu ..x hula hnng Iml yuu xvgn m can vs wy new mm 25/§I201&,sm>w ma .1 2m 2519/zma sw yxaswzevouwmwuxawina um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 9-;u.;u..m.,.....,,.,.,. amaze m miy my my, H“ mm. a Ynsk um vine 65,501!‘/.\mmc« AI pm :5‘ 7a‘ 75 and a1 sea 35, Yu, 75, u ok M Wang Naw wa in .u m m. wa an ME by Luna ran. as View. Pug. as, veeewud try. my yuuvsvgn.I1uva7 we Vnuv wnma, mm u men». have. Mr Wmufi On IhI12/J/ZDVB Am mm ‘s the wmsenn um? 25/wzma so You It nwnlcn In hnnw Io! ynu In -Van whlch you nln-fly mu m min m. =uurI yuu'rI Irymq In lay? Euzun at ma| um n was not wan yn And memm 1 ask lvr me vwmnem mm. m m nrdarln dednve lax New oxpuam in ma Mr Wang, my mu dala :2 mm mm Eaceuse I um vseewsd ms new-am an the umzma am :1 mum tho wmpany nu ya! tn WW am am» dncumavvt x sea The company, mm warm mm Mnnnwumam To am out «we. run mam nl me me oamv-My ms M mm nm the vaymm vuumsv at pm 557 Yul. HI am mu m. nlllqunnm Ind :4-pa-mu. zliilllh mun mm mu only my mm on |M mmm mmm. sum. um». .1. van an m. 2.4 ouau. But my mu m be wlm u out For mu. um. do yuu arm: in Hww an m mm n m M mm nm It why wn mm mm. -mm.» covwunmlon u 90:0 :1 a, I uk mv in “mi out an lnvnlcu my me |n doclnn lax. 19 sw yxaswzevouwmwuxawina um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm MAN. MAN s. «.g,,,..,.. vzssageme. um, .0, far can :l1l,yuu m mmng m vouchd am 51, can n V2: 81:, nnly In Sapvmllbcr um mum Imam In yum . 1a. 1:. .u vmldnr m ynu'I All sepmm M131 yaw 2fl1l,My\ady Thu Mvatsaw omm Semsmberlhl mmm bwmuh|aH (ms payment veuchav mm Vs: Nw, m. wm, cm a «mu man. a mu m. Sam: hum Vs wry Eumfle c V55‘ ‘s u mlsama nu-mm No annexe c Vkutxn flakumen mama wagv 306 You mm am mmu u. rm w. «myou to Yes m. u . vain! nah ynu um um In mu plalnflll. um can 191,01 xlm Iayu, rum... my um um my hlvufl man‘ m. u nmmnd .. 2 secnnds, xn sun And lhhwuunlun12III201I.Nov4 mm. m. whnn n. mu lnvolco pm as. rm. vnuchnfl Om mlmne. 5 may, run Is‘ y. mm p-pt 15, n \- us. only only sn vu Agam M, Wong, zne vw mm In vav-wt vouch-v on am/zma me nil: .11 me p-ymun voumar 5 I5/3/zma um me message was :enIm12'BI201! 2n sw vxas\1evouwu1wuxa\E;LA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm aw am. of Dozumcnlv Bundlo a :1) PhwmIl‘sAuavuon.m Bundlum Dbcumenlsaundln c :1; Amenm Vuuntu be ma —a«uu|- to ex Aqmaa F.nc1:-aundh 5 n Fh\rMI'I summary 0! CIse—BIm1I¢ r vv Defsmiunfs Summlrv D1Ca:a—BImdVI 5 <1 The Mlwmw an-wmem were aaanmuy named .. mm.’ 3) Fla\mM'i L9Qt.erMFDP¢\nlmm\lnII 9:96! 269 EH 251131011‘: B)< NMHC) vb Fhmmr. Renard mm .. paw; 277 mu 27s1aun¢\a ap- um: um 67 Fh\mM'i EDA aenmah — P! d) Wlmnavll manlgau Iuvdmm by Flwmll ‘2 The “mm wwlwssas WSVB mum uumw mm Plnmnrs wnm - a Lw PeyYes—F\:mIiW[SF1)~WHne5: Sulemem av sun marked an ('wssP1‘) :7 my Nanrurmlsa EmInJ=2Yar— xspzv ~ wunm Slalwmeru ol srz markad us l'wssP2') 5 my Yuk: Wan— (span 7 Wvtrvni snaxemm av SP3 mavked it (‘wears’) DIhndnm‘sWImII-I . Wang cm. Lmu (sun . Wxlnsss Slaumlm M sm mmm .. <'wum'> n PL;mrIrF'§ pg: 1: Tm F1awmWI>a<u:al\y Mwdud mac Ilvum wan an Ixmmu mane ulal IFIQMQM between her ind lhu Ddiendam m manna lo M mmm piyrnml A-mu sw yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm J ms 5 Inc same scsnaflo mm: mm» ufimuv an mum n mu m . J n have In sun mu wm rm said he mm to vapwm the sinnmuve meme what’! He news In (suave mm man: was) .I' m data: have on an 1 or 3 am -nu the data: nu ma pawnenx washed 3 7 an J 7 UV 5 dayl s 1 or a days alvev ma pmam vmlmarx m not mm mm mm 7 av 5 ms vf u-vmm vuuchm J No, beam Puan nskmfi vmmhavmu mmmm.m Mr. woun -nyw-y. mm m Inn ul-in .n the um. um «um. wms-nu um, vlymnnl Vaughn! am. your plu-awn mm, In your an zmmnny, Datum In mummy. you In the my I vehrrm In «mm. buull mu. p-nu yum Mind to mm Ix pqymun man-n Ir: nmllwu\u1.N6w vmal (turn pogulm man MI) I dlslnm. u m mum at the same we‘ wa noun Ihn {mud 3 Yaw uutsliuns la c\nMY mm «mm the Drflendnm mm mglm (D m Ima unflantzndlrrg m ‘invo\co" and ‘Dawn! vouatef Yhoush me Dofiandnnl nan mm med m mainlam ms lrv9t4ov\:\ mummy, yet he mu nnmmed mm M: undarxmod mat Fmmn mum Mun shl mm on m 1rmo\u‘ Vrwekx and peymml vondver ma demy m mnem ms and ii Vs lnuedlme um. Defuvflxnlwumd mamas mun Mn lhznme Fmmlheevtdemz‘nlimW><1uI|V\a|hs\tM|yiwsvIa7lhDflDcumeIIl£ that rm um dale And mac are mead ‘Dflymmn vaumaf and ma one ml 713 u0wh| m hive mm: um and prvvvflu «a me Flawmn Vi 1rwu\¢s" umu.u1.mnm::.Eanazm n sw .x4susvouwmmmz.m um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm MAN Rem wmussx 1.» have am mum: a an yuu mar no m. massaga, ax nu .« xumx, yuu om worry, my host m gh/9 you mmvay‘ you max ux. smrsu‘ cw. um: mnunvewa hum ynu ngnr» J vu MAN can ym explain in mm my yuur busx usual he gm Lou Pay Ya: mum J Beauuemyhasadmhupme\abuyIheuatnxpwmlucHu1ma MAN Yuuvbws: my me dllux pwducl Hum p\amlMa¥so7 J Myb-asssiked memhuy|>\ede1mpmduutmmLow FIyVosbu:aun rm mnsummn mu wm!uc| In: M»: m on: that Aux! now he swgn, Dag: mp. am what u ms nu. numhavtum navfi Yhme am run we he mg", n. mu» (0 Didi as» m mgn up Fiyvmmvour.11av7w.H5 7: mm, 51 man 4 Ya mm in ugn mm 52, as, an PF 55‘ m. 75‘ 51, my Vafly mm ‘Dull an Ill Ictullly puymm mum, mam pp; vu, puymmll vouufin 4. v. MA so you :IUpIywwvI|vI7u:h<1|n\m|ca7 4; V.- nu » You um nyaurmessuge up :95. mn. u hunfll: : v.‘ yuu look u m. ml:-lg: ‘yum prmlthl um. Ilvvmra ulvu mt‘ rm an-15 new you‘! J No‘! um. um 1. «mm Law Fwy v. 7 J V" hum Lew my v- umc: so you m.a.m.m um, you unlhnund mm m. mum Ham’! 4- VII so you km um] nvuicu Wu .».n-as v-mm fur luv rum? v. 45 M cmm..g..... um a.u.umm v mm. NP wvameo 5 on 12:12:: uuu 1155 N911 Calm new man 11 sw vxas\1evouwu1wuxa\E;LA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm us 47 ‘(mt muerm, ms comm ofmu mw mat the cormlclmvlndlnconshnm Ilsflnmny 1., sm an numlmux Inputs u apps»: to llvc our um documonlfli wmoneuwl rmm by mu Pmmlrlwhen tulednvnlnsl .n ma surnundfni I-cu -nd mnlnmpwlnloru documuvts onlyiuppofl mu P:-mum cu: wmnu 501': mm r. rendeoedlnhennfly hnpmbnbre I125) nm-rm buvdon S01‘: Inconustenrand mmmammmuny, in an mlaymwmwmrnmsova vevupn wnxmnmdudlndrumlnndllbnn ....«um unluppoflld by my Mdmn” sum an m. mm. m tin u. mmiudad man the verauly and aadibflw av ms vmmrss \: unny m um um M15 mm A rename minus. nu widume lhevefme must be scmnmzad WIIN gmmm and manna mm suummqxnoun cm. Hln v. mu: macaw mum llI|.J1a§EVoHw4ad) ma, Wt mun wmldars max mm M: wnmavn Benve/saliou and me mcam book were made comemuomemmy The xlllamautx mnhmofl m 111: Whlbflpp an wrvmvamwnn m. d1wI|upman|oHhI evunls‘ lhus vandaliny us Iahehund umwobame my mun mm on m In: Dnuabh: mm dawn WI III: I135! uf nmu 2.... mm. San aha V Ylnjlr Co mm 2 Mu 229 Muemm Ina Mal |ud¢5 mm mm was pwnlm m mm use my M hamlmem mwslemusnnahnn mm on m. m-my mm mmaam and H: Mlnessas On applzk m. Fader-:1 Eaun veverud N; flndmg M ma Chang Mm Yal FJ 5316 at n 23.: ‘Nevertheless, ms mama ms! [udvs mmssa mm In as zcmlnlotsly saddled mm the vorncvty oimc rasvondurrfs wmsm ma um awdwcv Ha pammaa 4.: mm: m cumm mm; allact an my mu! avrdurvzu mt nxtrvuhcenlwrlsrdevhathe ‘arm n n 4 rem-yseol, I would win- mp.nn.n.m-»n.::.vuzm1.:u..;.:~qonm._m,_ug.fl nla wllnus mm m mmmmous won Me evennnd mam mu m an r 1.. m nu ma 2 1; sw yxaswzevouwmwuxawina um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 45 A9 ncnlllzflnn or vunlnn 1:! n purl!-aulnny If 1.. In - wlmou worn - mp -mmnm mg “mtg! m. .m.m.m M M: ducmnnntx Ind mm; Juaacm rucoprtnn afewvencolaquflvu mu rm 9;] mgm 3 gmgm mm mm‘ :1 on mm. mm. mm wldnnn Ind m. u.in;1.ng gm, gm, Pluuslbmy Anomdnnvubc mmikul Vol vsviclry (Emphasis mm.)- Gunsd Wlhohnnarfle maberixad mm use efllndot a...r:.m.so.. aha V Imllv Co [1071] 1 MLJ In is ilmvu mm mm finds that um Dllarrdanls d-4w-I 6-my mum-d mm mm cmummm. dncumomm amm mum m 6115 me, nndL:_§1l§9_uu 71:: been «.mm M. umaam to mum M. flflanun an 'mm»vBYmu\(’ nu ma Cbmpanhs Hume, mm mm mmm suhmfsswn max mass nagmm mmnsalancwls mama ml n. dawnrdayai heuusemey um. um. wgmaravwn mm me»/My cuveaflhz Dalaneanfs finance mu nave Vs so mum in nml mam... belwasn me Pwamxm W live Dduidinl and no ».ym.m«c.,mn.mn has been mad: Laamed aaumel my Ihe Devendnnt mm vepmmfly .uu.m..1 man lhave WIS rm humus: nlalkznshlp and in mm was manly hnvma . mm, mu.» am mm the uedendant as me was late mgm Iufing and wmm ...m; my Imus: Vmxhnn In m. nmmuam .. mgr.:.m vuquutad Ihe Defiendam «u an In my mm“ mm such ugumm a Mum submission em. . Iawyaruwnslnar or um um Flimlfl nnfl Defuwdinl was havmg any u.anda\ws av mum. mummy pm to ma Iawwnl .s a nu Msvancmn me use sun and mm .. Emmy not ms-my la nnndev nu swgut-:1 by m. laamad owns»! m m. Dflandanly mm; mvulya busmeci Maounsmv M1yIne\a\emqMxsxw\a ma rewestina m. Deiendam m we EVEF In the mmmr. mm. u x: cm nnrm man can mupll av mm and M7: mum banuml -mturvglsd m Imqahm an to . wewedfiv humans remimuhlv Pvuvwhed on Ihe aloresaid. ms count ls sansfiad mm the Phmmf nu nmvud Ina exmemee :11 such mai lglumem ma wymarn luv oumvvntmn had mam been made. um dflanu mm by me Ddandanl Vs A mats aamv, um mm.m.«eu wnh any man: ewdenue :- sw .x4susvouwmmmz.m um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm mm mu- um wn-um an. Inn: .1 "nun-plymlfll um» cmnplnhl nu no ulvunn 1. mn mxmnn clllm inrcommmlon wmm m. mun hawavuv dlvagrss mm Ila wmnuan M the Wawnfifis mmex mu nawws cane <5 pramusa m on: Aamamum mm Daluvdanl’ and has no rebvulvce wvm Inua an ‘non-uaymu\ts' and mung: semen cmpams wx mun mm: mm Ina nril agroemwfs turn: as Iuusllaud m pivuurlph 5 av (ha smumu of cum .1 pawl 7 may mm. mm camnflulan 1. in be mm «mm In: vvdfl mm by me mmplny namud Success Pmoer mmmery — in W. 7 Ikuhn Plldlnw A — “ Dcfanmin man banarm’ skun memnklmman kspadapsmvlvk mum sm dun nknn rnamoay-vPIa1rWKombln trommliclom umm. am am unlung symkl! 1-mom mmmm. u ‘s we max puma: are bmmfl |7yme<rv\am\w Am Ihelrul mm: ummull be confined In Ina pleadings (Vlw mm. was v LII Knk Chyn [mo] 2 Iau 152 (sup, n 9 154;. m am as» av was Asplnsl Sdvl am Mn cmmanm San mm mm : Mu us, he mun mappsaw rn dedmng us Vmsflsvu Mlh me warm mun CourIJudga‘s dedmm said we mmma ‘ma plurnblfs dorm must be gmgm and mg m cgnlnclual mm 5,95,. m gm: andmo caurl mullm .or.m.z mo: Dinning mm. nu: am not Ivapnan m m 51:53 {sol pun 93-747” Hence. n u Vmpuflxm m an-mm. M»-um me wenaam an m ma reach/u paymmflrvm me Iwu aempanwemu Wnelherlhe unymznlmumvlmvssmu ». 2. nuagmfly ma hand an um dune Sum vlswlflunhlflovmld mu m P\:\nIm In my own witness ualnmenl -man ml - lo/ah uuwkan Amaa says mlluk mombayar lnomvsen nbnnyuk mwua amp-an ;& aam4a konlInk—konh-K yang dlmasukr - 15 sw .x4susvouwmmmz.m um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm ss 51 Wrm mm «.7 IN: islue‘ Im: mm man man Iumarmn ma Flalnlm, weasu sou rm no olma -mas Iflpvuaaadmfi MAH ox‘ yum amnmamn IIva\ yaw wmm\si\oI| Vs amrafiy um on ma mb am Yes, And nalon uiymum mm nut M mzwmudl paymnnl mcewnd by we Dafmflxnfx Gumpfiny sw Vs My hay. Iwnrdmg tn ‘ob um: um Yhcu : velerynu tnynwrlmwuvm quulkm numbar A "Bnhhkah Ind! mnrunlnsiun pdmbcyuun kmnnn my dljlnlllun oleh Duflnd-n u. .4. um um knnlnk-kmllnk Inn-bufl «mm. mu.» dljanjikan knpifli sly: um: mombuyu kwmun uhunynk nu|man.nu .1-«mun min; In a P In knnlnkkanlr-k pg. gmg u So, anylmnyywwanlw new SP1 man‘: kmmwhy :1 n. mm“ hm, hm auiaraa uwwvdvng ta our nlebafly agmamenl max w vecswed Rmooa oo lormsvymhdnns Tm; own ms mm rm P!-mm mm «u may 3 smvnmy umwum an rm requeu fur plmem {mm mm dun: Harms, in n. camuh-M mm m. plaaded mu :5 mun m pavluraph 1 M In: slaunmu ea chum \b‘D9Iendanls1ah bmamv'Aepada Plalm/Vbahaws Dalsmiam .m mlmblyu sdlmrlrlg-Armungrlyu lmmnmml nmooa kummn .1... salan/mnya am oleh xyankal Sweets: my Machtrvevy danaadu syurikat-aylnkat ton-nbm nualalufvdlibnnnnoerllrrpan mum ‘ms mun Iulad mm ma uewemnx 1: omy uouqam xu pay me mamurv oumrmssmn as pmmssd n paymam wu: mm: «.7 me mmvuny wxn ream In the mu: ul|2m1\L lms umm um cbgmznmna M ma lad man wvmvuar or not the P\a|nIW's um 04 mmno for uch Iununm suacssfufly paid 5: umamame as bemg “mm byme n -mam: mum nvwvu-my an F: mm mnahlllol makmg um . wvmion uaummum u m1I\sled n sw yxas\1evouwu1wuxa\E;LA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm one mm mm: in be ma Feduvul cowl in ma us: Mlnslunlcnlnr Syutm sun arm lnkmlkvv Am mm: Sdn mm mm: 2 .;u_: nu ma IIva\ “|so1Im a cardmal ms ms: part!” as bound by melrplemvnqs ind m fie m mm Gnu: mus! bedemdod an fig nu an we mmm, mm ».n.w.a 9 me mum»... figx mm in ghmd gn 5, mg by gguggmgm ma smu Gm/urrIrnsnIo7Pm1A V Msmlamfy was 1 MLJ we Anu-I rm Ma: Amm V Abduflah hm Mann! 2.». was 3 MU ;u;, and Slay v mm and Mom: 193:1 4 K3525)- sa mm perusedma enuru Dfl-ncafihd By Inn Devandam mm manmussues m qunlton mm nnl pleaded by the osvamm Dmandam aha ma rum maflmgn or pul m In: nraplmam man 715 made no profit «mm mm Imusawmu Ynslud‘ imm M swam M In: cmvmsumn ma vain: nulzu m wvulnun. :1 am 1;. sun um um P\am|irl am u.«am.nn rm wfludld m mavk up In P7155751 me 1» gm so mac the Dmndnnx can VII me mmmxsmun am av m Hem, nus mun ls nu ma wnswde/ed v\ew(ha|lI1e cummxmn xmmlrmrvg Au Rmoou u a fipum wdY cmnam Inn agmad upml by pam mar Ieldna mm cmddevalinn mm: potime am mama nu me D? relum Iim muh be mad: 5.. umdanoa um S71|k| n - "nnfundlm. In you xm tmnovvwt, ulcllhtn hm: much momy.I1n am I» you let me know Ihm haw much mmmmm It-- mod Imuomm.'(n.<a> I9A49m1 m. m um mu 1 . n. mm. m um um I man up . nun. an var yw. (om) |v.45p~v-I |7u1nndInl:Nn.Yo« um mu haw much Is your mum! win. 1. . mm am: can In mum. mu. um. um: ug lm yult hgn. Undouund wrull um um dam‘! uvIdurI1Jm!7(|l.0I7 mspml 2: sw vxas\1evouwu1wuxa\E;LA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm an at nmm. ...m my clnrly what you uy (I1.02)|¢.l7pm] Pmnml: \ uyl¢arI'lkm1wwIIlyou -ny. (n.o2} mam} n.1...¢.m.~ n ny you m m. knrnt how much I. yuur pm. nun! nan umr a mm mm» Yonrhnn eomlvm will an hum m .1'm «mm n. ma ml: I cln nh/I . nm. E; ggmnggn 93.; 9 mg, unamunav Undnmamfl new und-mzmd7 (n u) nmun-1 Pmymm vm |1n.n:pm] r mm ummuna nvw[1I).fl3pm] n.u.m.m: or cam:-. um an an . um Eurybody an can unh mm. coma or nor‘! may nn.sownl" m iunhuinw 04 me above mryms. the Mo summamudfimmts mm were um uhnuud by me mmm Vs vebwinl swam. In uhnw «mu m. numam mmpany nan umbean pmdiutwuy nu dons Both flajudgmmllum ablalnee am.» the nnmnany Mekarsuhur nmum Sen and and AvantMxnagumam Sun and me Rm: nmxp-w sc — :1 sum. a — Pun A7 and RM7fl.1W(pI9c :1 — :5 Bundlo a - Pm A) rsspaawely Fmmen Mainms mmwvlnasx ss-<4 lulwfiad Ind umvfinnad mm. Judgmwt wm «ogmnu wmh Interval and coals -m-ma xgamil mm Subuv Resoumn Sun and vevmhu cutslandww -mm may Based on Ihesumman/Judvmenl untamed iummlmme uawlvinvn mmam mm Defmnam mm» m. mmn and flm P\a\nW‘s ndmhsnan wn me wbmksxon man (have wave sun mum-w sum vmnzlms "mm m m. Du1endln|'x mmvlny, um mun mm mu «m cm. uuL|hnd\ng paywvum ma mamnn M: In Nahlh3c\a\minHhecm1miss\m\ A: mm‘ mm own mu my aflow me unuald mmmxssxon amuunnng u» m some «mm me as-y-mu, ymavm by me mmplrly namnd sums; Power 2. sw yxaswzevouwmwuxawina um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Mumnerv us no mo uy ma Dnfiendlm in nu Hainw was wan Mus nu ma schedme nmoanaa by Ina Pmnlill .n W: subnuunzn as mm.-1 by «nu own mm (Wan Sn — 54» \n anmns to ma News at Rmswua. ms awn mu mm min Awoum Ina eulaundinwnaymemnu mm nlmvannd mnlwdsrdmmvmmmmwlswmw shank‘! I): put em mun uuhumdmv pawluu. Hench mam av awammg mma.ooo amen by me maanw. IN: awn my qvnmsd nmsnou an we amunl M mmrmslmn ammud by mu manmn mncuulms Toxlnn up. mm Manama wmuauu and p-um Ivvnlubmnumnr at pzmli, mn own llndx mat cm F-Walrvllfil has wwud us use on . h-Va/we av pm: ' as was an Inn Rzflawwnn n-mn- emu on In: evinnnm adduuad. mm mm 15 salaried mu he Flmnull has waved mu axmllua nf mu‘)! mu .g..un.nn Ind subnqu-«Hy Ina Ddiundanl band»-G me we om Mrs:/mm by flehulllm .n navmw the Pmnlm ha mnstnnding mnnnnsaun ranymants nu. ddnncn mud by m. Daiuvmant n . m5v:duHa|,rvMsuh1|:*vmI15d mu anywqanxmmn rm caun mwtavur finds mm mu oral igrbemmrs mm in Iwurlralsd In Dumw-nah 5 and 7 of me Slatemanl H! mm n| was 1 danfly darmlnu mm mrlumumn n. m be we hum Inn naymemx vucqwad mm company named Suacau pm Man my Heme, we Dltendml .. arw ubfigutaad m pay me Pmnw mnnnxmn 1: pvmuasd .1 pnymsm wn ma. la m. unmpany in m. mm, mm an m. xxnmnlry wdgmlm Dhmnfl zqlmn mos: uurlulnh: uunbuxnd mm Duundanl mnmgn mn manw Ind mo wnmn admmlm M me submxssim mil than W37! mu umxvzndmg mm vuvuml »-mm mum umnua-wn umuny, an own mind Ihaflum-ose uxmtzr-am M-nenL me Plamnfl has no flnmtc aann «mu onmymsxmrl. :9 sm yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm mm. smm ...n.mm .. LAIQ4 w my n. nrW\nnU|Y mm: m.n.n wa mum pm e« A: mm. um. mull man why auaw ma mun mmmnum Imuuming m RM 55,0110 mam ms vaymws rsoewsd by (ha wmvany named 5uw«s Fuwuv Michmarym bl mm mm. wmammm. wnnu es Tm: enunmrmat mum ma pmyemma (I2) undar nnmamxm 21Aawamn)uv mu Slawmmt or new we Cowl aua uuuws 5 mm 04 RM man n general dnmngustc be paid by live Dalooflinltn Ihe mmm ea. Ousl was paid by [he nacemma {ha Plamhl! ‘s me at RMa,sno Dalad an. mbuznn (vows L u sum: Judi: Sssabn Com Shah Alum Sawvsznw QQ nu Vgv hg puguum mnemum pssmsunv 1 vmosnm ma mumunsuav manna mmnum vim s an Kaianfi. Selanflor Cmmse\ my the n.«=m.m mum vspmzswuun we-mm pmmn vswmsswmm A ASSDCIAYES mu. Lmwvuv sw yxaswzevouwmwuxawina um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm u. 15 vs auxvevuanf)‘ and hat mm ngamu me Deflendim n my mummy m umllznmvvq mmmmm payvmm The Human! made mm .;..m.n um Dal-mum on m gmmn man no nas breached me am iaraemenL new has ramamd cannburalnd um/nr uaulumrwllnuaus mm. In xurapm my am we uzrzunnu-s vsnsmu oevmaam um mm M deluu \s man there wu run an: ugvawwvn bolwuln me mammvana I9-e Denmam ma socond aruumenl Dul mm by he Defandsm .s mnllbere Vs mu»-yw-e«r mm: um“ 01-Complmui nxm. Mlkavfiuhuv Rlouulcas Sdn am a mum; Manaqmnanl San am, mama: Judy/mums ma wvomas as we“ .- mamas wave Muted w ma Dmmdam In show mm mm Ind mm Subur Gumvlnus am nm any am Dnendanfs wvrvpany Suwsu Pvmr Macmnavv IILAI>mFr'; auuullgglgu Lumld mama! my Ina Plawmfl wbmmed mal no s\ng\e meme has um (wandered try me nmuaam In mbunhal man: was uni inmemam bolwum mm and ma namnw ‘mm mm m In: scmrld dafanue mud . mm m. nnn»p:ymmL nmm mm um um uumam his mm to Mean and mung» me mevanae homes: the Mn devenses mum hymn D=4mdnnL u >. am/nmad that, based on me Neudinns lfiundle A} man ay Dime: ind ulna Amnndad lswn lo be me mu m Ouull re»-nuns D). V! b may mm was mun 94 nwvcym-m betw-in ma oovmmu an M24 an mm: m be mad ind n his rm mmvanca m In: Flurmlrx comm-mm uaymvn F|;\nwl wwm mu IN Dvtendunlnvane-«aim-adm msuugnuveunmmuemmm shwwma nnxus :1! ma -mm-ymaur um”: nmnplmn mm m. Plammfs uomnflixlnn haymem-. wrdm new shoot man the mmmxmm paymem recawed by the 4 sm yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 2a. 22 2: wamun Va um dwenmned band on me Iznymenl nr nun-niymnnl mmu Cnmfllmal mm.“ m. .xm...mm...1 lnanu-xhbhmm::vgnmantslur"nM-plwnurvflhl Defiant}:/IL nut omy has v. ed m new the msvnmx .7: me isluu .11 -M piymlnl’ In m. Pkunlmx mu mu m. D-I-mm r... uho (am to Him: mu Comuanm is mm panics m ms su\| and/at m cm wflnnssas (mm Iha Campnnissmltslflynunnvlhe m In sunpon Ms an.» an ‘nun-paymarvl’ ummm Caunsfi tor me Deflendanl suhmmea mu me w.mm nwur ngvuld «u my mmmvumn Ia nu. mamun am mm Wm nu ma wnmem In pay oemm\:s\onI m IM Plamlm. Cuunsai Vcrha uevanmmnmnuu Imlmsvawnsno rmmmremuonsnmnu me Pmnlm was mevaly hung . mmwy vmmuvp chI| Mm on wmam m mm m m. Vela mam mum; and mamm ianang Her Home mm to In: Defsniam 3| mm and remsum me Delamml In 310 «n um mm. m uuuswn la panda mum in w m was memy a mmneis ramluliflp my me me mum wxllnfi ma mquesumwme Delmdunl to in mm m the Hanmfl‘: muse u .. manngly duar Imm Ina wvvalxwp man ms was nwor any busvnnsi Mananshlv brtween ma PVIVHIM and uumam Yr: asunue ma Dzlandavvwi subrwssvon n max Ihe Pmnlirra am \s msensm as us amen am a man on Invmces mm um um new mm mm many dnwn Jndgmlmx nmamld agamsl ms Mo (2; wmpanrs rm Dulumlam Iubmvlud lhal bum I715 C0mpan\sHuvM1¥:h the PV:lnIW (SW17 bun «gum was In mug Ihe sum omummoan mm ladly and umm, rm Ilflifl m m. mm In mm dam a um 01 RMm.ooa an M m. Dblandlnl Furlhemvure SP4 (Mandyihlfl cunhrmed durmfi ems: exammnflm M Mr hnnslust r.s....u m maka u:¥V""“ tn S-4=-u PM-V WW"-w «sa- "H5164 of IN Nels: at Evmanwl. 5 sm yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 2: 25 an 21 2: Defendam mam mnlmdad ma: tho nmm nuag-mm um n-mm was madnln rm win nwur pmvan The mnuma um mahfish My proclmnl me paymanu ware mane Ia hsv Da1undnn|ivuIvad ml 51 ‘. Ihu mmn Mm mm In armch mun w we-nu um. um aw-m ma Dame-nn mm on an unmannrmme sum of ammom cm an hlvnma of vwamom. mum IN: D¢¢undln|wbmmfl1ha4lII\s own mwm nukaflvw 5 5; ugg yin nsglslayg or cougr Fmm ma Nudvngu. mu. In be mad (lbfl Amended Yuuus m n. ma -Buwflh n) and «um tubvmsslarw cum panics‘ I umu and Wk up In: Mlrmiw ma vssueu man u mu ddarmlrlnind duilwmu mam Iaquarlh-IW U) Vlhetiluthvnwal an ura\iu'nvvIan|r:!5l=:61r‘9 Pl'Ymen|c1eemmFss\M| m bamau-u lhe pamaa‘ an Whmu mm-mwu wu. Induui paid mm In um: um; ma) Whemav ma mus nl -nun—paymm- belwean mmnanim Ms M v-lwnnrn mm: mmrrmm «armmm.uum nlym-nl Mm mm. mt ma Ismail um mam Iuum Ind ‘ MW aux um lunmhav .s IaI:I\sua\|vnIaL1 /mlsloarala hm mnmnea 1uu. 1|) wrmm lhul wn n. aul -ammun Manama n-mum 91 cnmmlulnn In hlbttluu m vlnl Brim in nu clllm. I'M: mun ails! mysnng ma wldenoe (andemd um um: mummy given by mm...‘ ‘s mm: mm than was an am aqmumum mgnvdmg uaymm m mmmhnmw In Damian um Damn m mam dowmnmzry and contampoaneous we-nu Much mm tendumd ma refund by m pmmn cc pmve Ina exmme at am Agmsmam 2... sw yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm mwmupn chm mwelhs mm »-mm (comm mm noun from the wha!saDP me: me» win Ivamulbdd) bliwoen ma Ptawnm and Inn n.1am.m u>_umm Ind my nmmnr. mm mm LmAma;. 2a ms cum men am: am has: dooumems was mansd as Exhibits‘ by team mu) m. mmanls :1! ma wnmsavn nnrwerulmn cm: mun nun: mu Ina: ‘s \)\arIV\fi «mum mmuna la Ihe ax\iLen¢a av sum am Bfirasmenl an Elluwlsmt svudmain wnaluvn mums:/me no1asen‘u:mm<inun V No news: via: ‘ “my :2. ; DIII ....:.mu-n-; u ma ~: can 2». m Ma». :2 1 mmmmv 2 is»-m./unit.»-..«.......:..;...~ 2a5A35:. mm a 3 wanrzssa-M40 mm 1. am 1 lnvnl-:1 ammo zsshunala 3 SW 91'" "-Hues»-‘ FUN-I II“ III? Slyl WNW” PW‘ F" to we we mean povm" . comm-sslunbanklnuwvwllbvbuamanttufianfln «mums ‘ 5 Vewwrocovdmg 2m.m..a 5 uma:m..mwm.m...m...m»g amums 1 W...¢..u..,...~.(..........u. 346 mm ma-nun mu wo emiocuve 24 u.v.naam- Va venl Van Phunllfl. man 1 Nxl am. can taknhvm u a Venue Rawrdmy 377 » mama w.m:..m n ny you In mt mm how much u /andosure 24 your pm. mu 1 can lmnr . um. an. m... yml 7 sm yxaswzsvouwmwuxalilm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm sun mum. wlll nu. mm m. mom m|.l1In "III I Ian win . mm nu cnmmlumn buck no you. ....4.m...a7 Undwnlnfl? Do yau uvIduIund'I ro.1A)Iv.«nm1 :1 rm wmuam was Izws—sIamIv\ad Irv Ihe vI.Imm mm» Band 90 .II Ihl cwdenae mm, un6aI1urIAte\yl>Ie Defendant was LAHIMI In wwn snnslaclufl icmum an Inn HI: almhnalhn Inal ms mmay plld wal Iur mm In! mu mmm and lmn7aII mm nurwse V! muy nal vmbime unduv ma uvmmshnta and I dhbweve mm 5:: ha evmence bdnw s own mlltx mm. DI-Ime Bssusrxng Mm xural 254 Am Ma mu, Iht um um. I un am commhlon’. um I. m: cnmmun|:IIlmI bqhvnnn yuu mm. plllnlfll v. smmng snalnn saya. mu m pmalian xmm m urI:7 Val DY nu, than Ada Sakaring kw: Muk mm 2:5 mm 5 ya us, are you mun? Yes. Tau glvo mm, I gm you zommlllun, lhlll w. gal tummy.‘ 4- v wolnfi Pnrhtxln lmmll-n xdl al Inn? 4: Ma‘ 5 Suksenlnr. an-In mm Kw: mluk mun: mukz wml 2sS,y1 m .u. mum a mu max 2399 jumlahnya am mm mm Is mo salu \Iwo\s saw, us, ssm man we pmmam m Ihefiaure has: .1 JunI\aYI Im ada mlruwk kapada pwm-pma-a Iam yang man: Ianya nus» dshhnl dannaua pmaman yaw !r.De\uwI my. IIIIYI max mamm Kenna: Immmu yang mum... sw IIXASIZSVOUWIDWDAVEILA um Sum! :uvIhnrw\H be flied M mm .. WWI-I mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm fl Slhnlum Im am m um. u. an mu. :. mm from pmzu... cnmlnntlnn‘ my qu llmph, :.. mm: mm. a mm. pnvlom culw-nll\on7 nm. Arm. Evmkwamg, pa. mynuvkrwwedga‘ alaupun pmdunal kamu, perkam Wm Vane‘ bamuus yDurvrwo\css ave an a lhnuund Dc you same man me an my 7 smnm. um plvuknp-n ..s. dllnm nun-1|-nu’! (Inn my ‘mm. maIn\yyuur\rIvn\oas ave a mmana an you was Mm me’! Ya ox. m. wm, nwwwu um um :11. man. a ".211 um 21: mm you can u-up aocumm h-Ion‘! Nu. Ilwnrl Na Du you km mm dncumtm mm-7 um lnhu mm, uyl Ilun munulilkun mm kumu mu 1. - documnm whln um am you my cm vmmm mm I: .n Icknwwlidvlmnm dam ny nu. wv-n ynu ny Iclmawlndgl mum, n. nzkrmwludm mum Ncknewhdln mo:ns.I\¢n1:uMIVmI,IhovI . = .m.u..:.a.. ...,... m. paymnrunillu mm. mm m. hum, mm min. m. we-nu. now m MM no pm 294. men. 5.1»... mung: mun .-yum lulu] In-km Suhur :99 um Avnruz mg Mg gmkv so an yen -xmann In mm. mm book In mm Ifllluud mu 1.. -an-n lnvulc-. an. up my! main): my on. my w-II‘1non m Mu van to :10 mo :19. Alia Imn Wu huvu menlimved. ‘um. mm ml vnuv mu Ind um. um pmmm uknd ‘mm bwk7";V¢n hook. 11:. sw vxas\zevouwu1wuxa\E;LA mm Sum IHIWDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm s I . Nwawi mfnr mu m 104.?-p m. In: WD1l§,|hIl :. . mu n. lltn you um wnua KM max-um. Nuw u-u the noun mm s In. to on you mm munm m land nu. mu In -up. 4 a.¢..... : punzlun amp hum um nlllrlllll mu . 5 the woman: much‘: mam Fontmll mil: . momfl um: wvnumrmu mm. manly? Thlrnnn .m-ynuu punk .1 . dvlax. Mlhnflimn In lhnuvmnlhlx . mmu mm. In! vmowov wln or Von nm In my the munch In m.nru..\ pan: nu m...y In Mr. 5: Sn wmch In which ma mum mm: mmm Which am? Both. sum. 30‘ new mum was rm woman and how much lcr aemxv J Say: hdak mam karma penara mun namu mam lama v-nu say! Lahu Iumhslmyn adnmh man man was bins levikmr muki mu m u M): mananyakanny: Ma mesa me am bawa mu mam s Kzmullktanyi my Wnng,v1ImIwIn\:h ma, ‘Wang. tnmmvuwynu mmsan luesda)/‘ mam Mun ywdslox‘ You my ask J wanker-1/15 5’-WI man pun mambua|Pembaysr:n13c\Vanflhendak mmmawa data»: m Kenunasayi s nemymoameavvmw BundIeC \a\:fl|7|lH\myl7ul)Inl|lu:\savmue nousamnyvw mm Faggfi In sw vxas\1evouwu1wuxa\E;LA um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-414-12/2021

PEMOHON ISMAIL BIN SULAIMAN RESPONDEN 1. ) MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA MALAYSIA 2. ) PEGAWAI MEMERINTAH BATALION KELAPAN BELAS REJIMEN ASKAR MELAYU DIRAJA

Armed Forces — Misconduct — Offence under Armed Forces Act 1972 — Respondent charged under s 51 of the Armed Forces Act 1972 — Being involved in drug abuse — Issue on applicable guideline for urine test — Whether ‘Perintah Majlis Angkatan Tentera 4/2009’ (‘2009 Army Guideline’) had force of lawArmed Forces Act 1972 — s 51(3) — Standing Orders — Whether publication of Standing Orders sufficient to impute knowledge — ignorantia juris neminem excusatArmed Forces Act 1972 — 2009 Army Guideline – Form used — Whether deviation in Form substantial and prejudicial — Whether there was substantial compliance with requirements — Whether applicant was prejudiced or misled by the deviation - Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 — s 62

15/12/2023

YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fe5c186e-c496-40b4-ae26-96fb0799797a&Inline=true

15/12/2023 10:08:39 WA-25-414-12/2021 Kand. 41 S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N bhhc/pbEtECuJpb7B5l5eg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25—au—12/2n21 Kand. 41 15/12/2023 mzaa-32 DALAM IIIAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA m KUALA Lum>uR (SAHAGIAN RAVUAN DAN KUASA.-KUASA KHAS) PERMOMONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN N0 WA-25-414-12/2021 Dalam perkala penynalan perklmmalan usmau Em Sulilmln mo mu... u3Au2o/ No KIP aaoezw .5315). Din Dnlnm mm.-a Pnmlcaraan ma.-. mm: mm Iems oleh Pegawax Memenmah Emamn Kmapnn Bun R-pman Ailcar Me\ayu Dma lemadnp wsmau Em suuamn (No Tsnlarnltalfim/No mp asoazms. 5315» Ma 21 Mex 2021‘ n... Dalam Pemara Kavmlusan Rlyuan mm; Anukatan Temem Malaysia izmidap kepnmsan vamucavlan (arm Fegawa\ mmmr. (Imaflap nsman Bu Sumnman (No Tamera M34020/Na K/P 530521057 53751 hanankh Dada 7 oxmxm 2021. Dan Dznnm Peflota Seksyen 51 Akva Angknmsn Teulura «W2 Dan mu. Parlors Permian Mums Angknun Tanllra suamzan «x Tzhun znos Pmsedur Purgulan um. Pungandahan Speshnen An Kenning unmk um Dadah Bsmahlya Angkzlan Tellers Malaysm Dan Dalam Farkara Sum Pekemmg Kama Pengarnh Ksmslan Makaysla BHzman 5 mm. zoo: cam Panduan mm Uuan Pengesansn Penynlahgunaan Dadah Dalam AV K-mm one». Kunanlllhn Kan un Mamsxz. D... 1 sm mm-Jntazuzcuintflssafi-n mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Ds\am Perkan: 5 din v-mm a wansmnagaan Persekuluan Dan Dam Perkara Pavanggan 1 Jadua¥ kspida ma Mankamah xenamman «gm Dan Dalam varkara Aluran 5: Kaeaanxaeazn Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA ISMAIL BIN suummu (No. YENIERA: nauzn No. KIF: 53052705-5315) ...PEMOHON DAN . MAJLI5 ANGKATAN YEIITERA NIALAVSIA . PEGAWAI MEMERINTAH BAYALION KELAPAN BELAS ...REsPoNDEN REJIMEN ASKAR MELAVU DIRLIA -RESPONDEN JUDGMENT The vaccual background [11 The applicant was a member oflhe Malaysian Army with me rank olsergeanl Below ms service was |emuna(ed, the applmam was 3| me as RAMD (Para) Kern Sen warm Kua\a News Telengganu (‘1E"' Ballahorf). IN wor/nr:EIEcuJnt:7s545=u “Nate smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Show that he is eilhar pIeIud>ced or IIIISIHG by the deviation. Having deliberated Ins Form used. I do no| IsspecIIIIIIy «Ina mat Ins flex/Iauan had any Suhsfanhal eflecl smee It SWI oanlams correct and mevanl details cl Ins apphcam The apnlicznl IS [IN prejudiced by the devianon [41] on me Issue 0! me manner in wnIo+I Ins unns weennsn IesI was wnducled, the 2"“ Iesponuem had made a flndmg of fact mac me 2002 Army sIIiaeIIne had been adheved In In any event, Ins sppIIcanI nas failed Io show In Ina own as in which punmurar provision or me Army Guldelme IrIaI Ins procedure undertaken In Ins IInne specInIen test had baenIn1rInged. [42] As Iolhelourlh Issue, I IespecIIIIIIy agree wnn Ins Iesmsa SFC ma: I| has not been pleaded in me appIIcarI|‘s statement In End 2 In Sumvly Univlrslfy Collage V. Mlhklmlh Porlltlhlln Mlllylla 5 Ana: [2019] 1 cu 55 cA, Ins Court I71 Aypeal new that II IS a zardinal requirement that the cIaImanl musl 521 um her grounds dearly In the slalemanl supported by sufficiem detaIls and oumprehenswe panIsIIIsIs M Ins facts and matters which Ins daIman| scughl In rely on. I=IIIaIIIgs [43] For lhe aroressn reasons, Ihe Impugned aecIsIan was made In accordance wIIrI Ins raw and Is not InInIe¢ wan iIIegsIiIy, illallurlallly nr pn~.csaIIIaI InIpmpIIsIy. [44] ms applmamn Is uIsInIssea wIIh no order as In Dos|s Tnrum: 15 nlumbor 201: LA (WAN AHMAD FARID BIN WAN SALLEH) HakInI Msnkaman TInggI KIIaIa Lumpur. II N N1M‘lDbElECuJDh7B545li “Nair s.n.I nmhnrwm be I... M my I... InIn.II-I mm: dnuumnl VII AHLING Wm! vmax-max 5.9‘ pm Fnmohon - Ahmnd um Em Muhnlyiv Tmuan A M Zahanl a Ca am pm Raasnnndln Ahmad Herurhln Hambary@ArwI src uyam mm. Mmammad Fuad rc Jlbuun Punulm Nwari. Pulrmsya SIN hl1M‘JDbElECuJDh7B545II 12 «mm. s.n.‘...u..Mm.,.u.....nmy...m.u.y.m.m.u.m..n_.Na W K?! [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [5] The 1* respondent is the Armed Forces council ('Caurlcll“) estatrtished under Art t37(t l ot the Federal constitution. Under the Article, the council shall he responsible under the general authority at the Vang dl»Penuan Agmtg tor the command. discipline and administration ot. and all other matters relating to, thearmed foroesi other than matters relating to their operational use The 2"“ respondent is the commanding dinoer ot the military unit oi the 18"‘ Battalion. on 3t.3 znzt, the applicant underwent a urine drug screening test The test is imposed on all members 0! the Eallalicn on 1.4 2021, the applicants urine specimen was sent to the nepanment oi Pathology, Hospital Rala Peremptian zernao ll, Kola taharu, Kelanlart (“HRPZ ll“) tor analysis The result of the analysis confirmed that the applicant's urine cornairted Amphetamine and Methamphetamine The report was rriade under s 399 or the cnminai Procedure code and signed by Sysd Ahmad Nazn bin sayed Mohamed, the Science otfieer (Forensic) at the HRPZ It The applicant was then charged under s st ot the Armed Forces Ant t972 (“AFA”) for the offence Ofdlsabadlerlce to a standing order. 5 51(1) ol the AFA provides as lollows: Every person arolect to service law under this Icllmln uovllraverles or late to comply wllhzmy proviwrr oi orders to whtch ins section applies oerno a Dmvlsmn kmrwll to him or which he niipht reasonephr be nxrnclbd to know mall, on ponviption oy oeunananiai. he trapte to lmpnlcnnwrlt tor a tarni not axnaldlrlg two yuan or any less punishment pmvided by this Act The charge agemst the applicant was dealt Wl|h summarily by the 2"“ respondent. The applicant was lound guilty ot the charge on 27 5.2021 and sentenced to a fine 0114 days salary As a result at the sentence meted out agalrts| the applicant at the summary trial, the 2"-1 respondent recommended that the applicant be dismissed under r tsl(ll(m) or the Armed Forces (Terms of senrice tor the Permanent Foreesl Regulations 2013 (“the 2Dl.‘i Regulallcns'). under the rule, the competent authority may 2 rn MM'JnbElECuJ|'tb7B545Ii «nor. s.n.i mrnherwlll is. u... a my r... nflvlhellly MVMI dnuuneht r.. .nuno vwul disdlarge any servlcemari 1mm 01: service nfthe regular Games on me graund mat “me serviea Mme servlceman is no longer required“. [9] Pursuant to me Veliommerldallflrl rnaee by lne 2"“ respondent, tne Deputy Commander ofllle Army. Lt General Daluk sen Meriarnrriad bin Ab Rarinian, lied appruved lne dismissal al llie applicant under |’61H)((|)O1UVE 2013 Regulation: on 2 7.2021 [1 0] Tire dismissal was elleclive lriam 2 5 2521. [11] The applicants narraeon onrie event is as lallaws tal Trie applicant was on madlnal leave «or luur days lreni 273.2021 to 31.3.2021 due to his lHrIe‘SSr known as apineuerebellar alaxla. in) It was during lnis period, when lie was on medical leave, tnat lne annlieanl was lzrougrit to lne 18"‘ lzallaliaii lo lmdergn a preliminary screening tesl Aa alluded to earlier, tna applicants urine sample was tested pesilive lerarnpnelarnine and nielnaiiipnelarnine (cl According to trie applicanl, belore me pr ary urine screening lest. lie had inlorrned the Opevalicn Team lriat he was under rriadidauan. wriicn oonlllnad criernieal subslancaa. due to riis illness. the niedicarriems prescribed in me applicant include: Neurubion Aspirinsonig rii. Alenraelalin N Amlodiplne Tne rnedicarnenls wan prescribed hy a medical urrrder at me Hospital sullanari Nurzaliiran, Kuala Terengganu (“HSNZ‘). (d) Daspile being inlorniad ul lhe applicanrs condilion, lne operalion Team went ahead wilh lhe pre inary urine test. (e) As elaiad earlier. lne applieanl was suhjscl la a summary lnal before trie 2"“ respondent on 9 5 2021 pursuant to lna shares under s 51 dune AFA. ru mM'JnbElEcuJnb7a545-il “Nair Smnl mmhnrwlll be u... m may i... nflnlrrnflly snri. dnuuvlnrrl n. nFluNG war (0 Aecorumg to ma appucam. he was my hlnded a copy or me note oteurdenua on 20 5.2021 (g) The summary (rial resumed on 27.5.2021 and ma applimnl was hand gumy and sentenced. [12] On 2 32021, on We Instruction made by (he appllcanly his solicitor: wrote to me 2"” aerermam requeslmg that me apuhunl be mad by a Marlial Conn and rapraseruaa by a suurcnor. The letter expressed “NB Ipphcanrs concern abotfl N5 Hghl (D a fair [Hal in VIEW (:1 medical common. It smes irusr alis as loHams Mnlm manna. kaglnavan mu uanm uakrrarrya anak guam um mukarbraarakan or Mzrrkaman nruara, mu gum mm. mu d.npa\ msmoangkrxxan au u |evsebuI dengan balk nan kemungkman mauan lmak uapux lerbel: um ilun murwubabkan anak yum kzrm mendzpal hukurnnn yang max uwuamya [13] On I6 6.2021, me 2'-1 respondent repfied In the sam lellar s|aImg maurrera was nu op|iun acwrded to me an M m be! ad by a Mama! Oourt m view of s 9719) of the AFA. The wetter Inlel aha slates as lallowa: Trada nwwen unlui. mmuam u. Mmkanah mu.” dlbankan klpadu inggou xarsabm semis: palhlcaraan kerana berdasaman 3 mm, ma Angkaun Tenlua 1372, huknman lursabm ndak mamarmkan wayun uroankan s 9719) provides as inflows Nulwnnslandmg anyflung aarnarnea Vn uumauurr 43». mm (In unmmlndmg Mficlr has de|emuned manna accused I: guily am rr In rlurgu 15 mu Mm surmuruy MU lwnrd pumihmam omer lhan server: renruuar-u, rearuuana. hue on mmur Durushmentarvmele n lmmng .71 uumy twhalavor me Dumshmem amaraeay wiH mvmve a vurtsmra ul pay (ulnar Ihan . rum, ma Dumnundwng umaar man nor rmm a mum unll aha .a«m1u.u lha accused nu nppomnlly nl mum In as Mad by mun- mimal, and rv one accused is eleus and um um suhseqnenfly. n accordamu Mm 5 sru mm-/nhE1EcuJnh7s545-n «wu. Snr1|\nuuhnrwH\I>e met! a may r... mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum war u-uuvsuuns made under nus Fun wunanaw nu e4ecuun, me commandma may snan nnl nmu n firvdmg L11 gu-ny um -nan (aka the pvesmbed s1eps mm awewtu mecharge bemu mad by nwrlrmamal [14] In his letter, me 2"“ respondent also qucled s 14611)1c) 0! me AFA, which provides that where a person subjec| In sen/be Vaw under me Act has had an «menus candnned by nis wmmandvng umcan na shall not be liable .n resped av mat owenee Io be men by coun- manual [15] Subsaquenl to me sane: Vrom ms 2"’ respondent, ma appnuanrs solioilars wrote to me I“ respcndanl on 23 a.2o21, appeahng against the nppucan:-s uunymuon and sentence [15] Yhe seaelary ol the 1* respondent rephed vme ms lellev dated 11.10.2021 stating that lhe councu hid convened an 25 9.2021 and wok eogmsanoe that mere was no occurrence of subslanllal uqushoe. ns' her was mere any error 01 Vaw oommmed by lhe 2"“ respondenl in amvmg at ms daemon [17] In the curcumsvanues, me aeusmn of the 2* respondem was affirmsd by me councn. [121] Aggneved by me respondents’ decisions, in ipullcam commenced an apphnauon for um vevlewlcr a declaratory order In quash me same. The applican a\sc sought let an omar cl mandamus lo compel Ina respondents to rs-enlist «ne appucam no me Armed Forces wmhoul any Voss In rank and pens [19] Leave to commence pm a review was granted by nus Court on 27.1.2021 [20] Tne appucaniun for juduual namsw Is supponed by the affidavn o! the apphcanl m Enc\31“AlR-3“). m mm-/nbE1EcuJnh7s545-n «wn. s.nn nmhnrwm n. u... w my n. nrW\nnH|:I snn. dnuumnl y. mum Wm! [21] The graunds av lhe appncauon (or wdxcwal review can In surnmansea as «allows, (a) The respondents had laflad to wave al me summary |naI |ha| me appncann had vmacea the Armed Forces svandung Order. In sncn, the mgramenus at me nuance under s 51 av Ihe AFA had not been eslabhshad (ht There was a vaunna la give me appeilant an oppununny |o deland mmsew at me summary man. (c) The nsponaenxs had «aim to mmply wnn me Penman Mama Angkatan Tamers sr/angan 4 Tahun 2009, Fmssdur Pungulan flan Pangendarian spesunan An Kenung unluk L/pan Dadsh serbanaya Angkaran Tsnters Ms/aysia (“me 200/a Army Gmdehne“| (d) There was 3 new guluahne Vssuea under me Pe/mtah Mams Angkelan Tenlsru Bilsrlgsn 2 Tahlln 2022 Frossdur Pungulan den Pengsndalran Spesimen Air Kermng unmk ujan Dadah Bemaheys Angkalan Temela Ma/aysla (-me 2022 Amy Gundehnej Analysis [22] Before ma, learned counsel (or |ha applncanl xubnuled Ihal me respondents had failed I0 consbder that the pruseoutxon had not established me! We awhcanl had violated the Armed Fnrees Standing Order (‘AF Standing Order‘). Laamad DOWISSV camendad ma4 me auegacion M drug abuse could my be proved after he AF Standing Order had been puhhshed and read |u one app|II:an|. [23] u is me appvcanrs case that «ms is not done [24] Leamad counsel cm s 51(3) 0! ma AFA and hwghfighled max me AF Standing Order must be pubhshed in such manner as may he delerrnmed by me sannaa cniaa in: each Semce nr any omoer amnonssa by m m wow/nt:E1EcuJnt:7s545-n «mm. am.‘ ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 w mm s. mm-y mm: m.n.n VII mum v-ma! [25] The question to my is,w11llIi meant by publilinn? more Is no indication in the AFA mat the AF Standing Order must be published in tne Gazette, It only says tttat me AF Standing order mu5| be pubiished tn such manner as may be determutad by tne Service cniei. [26] In repiy te tnis asseninnt the 2"‘ respondent Iflitmed in his amuavit in reply in Eric! 12 (“A|R—12")Ihanhe AF standing Orderwas indeed publlshsfl as shown tn Exh MF-2 The AF standing Order was caused In be pubiishad by true 2"‘ raspondam in his capacity as the commanding omcet-of the 13'" Eattation. [27] The AF standing omen which addressed tne issue at dmg atzuse, is pubitshea on 1 1.2021 and states as loiinws: Bil 2 Kent sen Psalm. mm KUALANERU$ Yevertggartu t Jan zt In para 29(i)o1 AlR—12 the 2"“ respondent emrmea tttat. Snhnglt Ingguln ltmru yin}; mu... Hi a.t.i.nn Keiapari E-last Rafllmrt Askar Meiayu Dim]-I Kant sari Punlat, Kuil Narul. wmneeenn Mal-It mlmadi ktevairnart Pemartrm urtltlt nnngnanui mortglltai Purtrtlnh Vamp yutg Dfllh dipllui-tt ma maria ranya lehv distmkalt umlzrnya [231 Wilh resped. I cannot agr more. The moment tne AF stenatng Order is pu snea, me appll nt cannot reign igntatanee The iaw does not re: tne AF standing Order lo be read la the appncant. S 51 07 the AFA does nu| say (hI|. It artiy says that the AF Standing Order must be published. As soon as il IS pubitshed, me applicant is presumed ta have been aware at it. The mam at rgrmranna /uns rierninem excused Invites In Tindok Bislr Eslltl Sdn Blvd V Tfniar Ca[1979] 2 MLJ 229 FC, Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Bomso), in uetwenng the iuttgment at me Federal Cuurl, made me lallowing otmnrenen. As uhsarvad earlien one ol me reasons wax met tr-e Msptmdentwns ill iumrllmu at In: iaw me tnit maxim ts tgnorantia /tms nernrnern axcuutand me we prvpoimun rs |M| nu man can excuse hlmssfl imm doing ms duly by saying tnat »e an rim knmu tn. Iaw on tn- rnattei rn t~ltM‘JnhEtECuJnh7B5i5In «we. s.n.i nuvthnrwm n. n... w my in. nflmnniily mi. mmn vn .nune Wm! [291 As lo lne second issue, the queslipn rs whelnei ine applicant was given me nglil m be heeid [30] is ii liue inal ine applicanl was denied the iigni id be heard ai lhe summary lrial7 To beglrl with‘ irie summary lnal Involved a hearing olwiliiesses They include me head imha opeiaiidn Team and five plhei witnesses. Aepprding In irie 2"“ iesppiideril in his AIR-12, llie applicant was rial only aecdrded irie riglil in be heard but was also allpwed In all Ills wilnases Amie suinmaryiiial. iheappllcani was allowed in cross-examlne the pmeepuiipn wllnessss. The applicani was given ilie oplipii to give evidence on aalh or make a siaierneni wiihdul being sworn in. [31] ll has also aslahlisried that «lie applicant had indeed cmss— examined SP-3‘ the lniid wiiiiess. [32] In para 16(3) a1AlR-12, me 2''“ respondent amimed as (allows Ki) Serums: Pavfilnlrllll ram, Flnnhan ielali dineri wluanp mluk inempela din .1... p. u ielari neieiiai eainilnan Pemohn ielarr rnernnua kedelangsrl secala peisuiripari dan rianya rvlerlyalakzn neliaii max neiulari darr irigiii rriempawa K95 lie peiirigxai leplri iinppi lzarripripri lzelah irieinanppil saliai lalmahan umuk mavllbellkarl xeleninean iepaaai saksi wnlnh I do npi, irieielpie, respecilully find lhal irie applreanrs nghl lu be heard WIS denisd RI the summary lrlal. Not only was he alluwad to give evidence on D7-1|l’l,UIe appllcarll also called a characler wiiness In Ieslify for hlm. [33] As lp llie lriiid ISSUE‘ file applicanl alleged lliai lhere was new campllanoe Wllh the was Guideline on irie ldirnal mine Form used in me pipeedura lei epllaciing and handling ihe applieanrs iiniie specimen [34] On lhls lssua, the Ieamed SFC submlllad lhal ll at all IVIGIB ls any irregulanly ln lhe process lor wllecllnrl and handling 07 the appllcarlls ullne specimen as alleged, ii is only regarding ihe lpiinai ol the lorrn used, rial in the sampling process or me applicanrs urlne Considerlng the Form sllll contains correcl and relevant 9 rn hllM'JnbElECuJrlh7B5l5Ii “Nair Smnl mmhnrwlll be UIQG M may i... nflnlnnllly Mlhln dnuuvlnrll Vfl nFluNG mi delails M lne appllcanll me learned src submmed lnal lnls us not malerlal as compared to an lrregularlly wlln respect in me supslance, wnlcn is me unne specnnen llsen. [35] In sum, lne learned SFC contended that Slnce lne Fonn ponlains aeeurale dslalls, l| nas not meluulced lne appllcaru [351 In any event. the Ieamed SFC supnmled that me appllcanl snould have raised lnls lssue aune mal and non al lne judlclal revlsw stage [37] on me plner nand, learned counsel ldr lhe appliwnl relened me to me ludgmenl pl lne Courl pl Appeal In M-Ijlls Angkaran Tenure Mallysil v Mend Nurul Ami bin Mend Elsi! [2019] 2 MLJ 433 CA. Tne Courl el Appeal held that by virlue or s :5 ol lne AFA, me cdunml was empowered by law to make regulallons ll may Uwlk necessary erexuedienl ldr ms bellercarvylng lrl|c eflecl onna An, and «ms lrlcludes issulng lne army guldahne, whlch was issued by way or lne Penman Mams Arlgkalarl Tenlera’. Eeing made by the aulndnly dune Cnuncllr lne armyguideline was‘ lnerelore, valid and enlpreeahle [as] In lne urrlslanoesr ll rs waH»se||lsd mal me Army Guldehna had me lame of law. [39] Even in Mohd Numl Ami. the Calm of Appeal held that tile procedure adopled by the appellant In lakinu only one puma of me rsspanderlfs unne speclmen was .n accordance wllh zne Army Guidellrle and lnsl lne KKM guldelme relied on by me reeppndenx, as -n mas case,ouult1 ndl supersede me Army eurdelrne. [40] As lo lhe Form used, ll is lnla lnal lne devialmn lmrn me prescnbed Form IS not in llseW lalal. s 62 pl the lnlerprecaliun Acls 1948 and 1967 provldes mar Any wmlen law nlesulblnq a form snall pe dstmedlo pmwde lhm-In lnslrulwnlovolhsl document purpamrvg m or -n mal farm snau non ha lrwalldzled by reason av any devulllm lnun me man n lhe davlihnn nu no subslanllal afiecl and Is ml calcumed rd mxllnd I am of me Vlew Khal a minor de»/ia|iun lrom me presenped Form xlsell Is not a ground in lrlvz|lda|e lne same The applicanl mus! nu m mM'JnbElEcuJpl:7a545-n “Nana Smnl nuvlhnrwlll a. u... m my r... nflfllnnllly sun. dnuuvlnnl VII mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-45B-24-08/2020

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH Jamil Bin Tawasil

Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan (KK) - Perundingan sebelum perbicaraan - s.172A(5) dan s.172B(6) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) - persetujuan bertulis ditandatangani - diterima sebagai bukti dalam perbicaraan - elemen niat untuk membunuh gagal dibuktikan - pembelaan tidak siuman (“defence of insanity”) di bawah s.84 KK - pembuktian medical dan legal insanity – peranan laporan perubatan forensik psikiatri - tertuduh dibebaskan dari pertuduhan di bawah s.302 KK atas alasan sakit otak berikutan s.347 KTJ dan dikurung di hospital psikiatrik berikutan s. 348 KTJ

15/12/2023

YA Dr Wendy Ooi Su Ghee

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=df0a50bb-4a31-435e-b993-41efc28a6653&Inline=true

15/12/2023 08:52:51 BA-45B-24-08/2020 Kand. 110 S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N u1AK3zFKXkO5k0HvwopmUw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal EA-I55-21-DB/2020 Kand. 110 15/12/2923 an :r nALAuI MAHKAMAH mason SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARLIL ENSAN PERBICARAAN JENAVAH No A4sa.u.na:2n29 ANTARA FENDAKWA RAVA DAN JAMIL am TAWASIL NOMBOR KAD PENGENALAN : asns1a.12su1 ALA§AN P§NGHAKIMAN PENGENALAN m .llmH hm ‘lawn?! (Ter1uduh)le\ah dmadapkan dengan penumman dz blwan seksyen auz Kanun Keseksnan (xx) yang berbunyn sedemn un- - fluhawa knmu pm 9 Navembar am amamam ream kma/I7 1100 mmm Iv/ngga 11 :5 ma/um benempal av 1471471, Tamar: Putin Tlragorv sum 9 Chem: dalam Dasrnh mm Langar, datum Nsgun Selangor cm 9.5." 2.1.». ms/lhukln mm» mm msnysbabkan kemslian Fm .23. mung «arm Dcmama Tavmul hm smug [No kad pnngerwlarv 511547G—12—518§Idan deny-an rm Kamu rem: mslakulwrl suslu Iwsalahan yang baleh amum droawah seksfln JD2 Kamm Keseksaan - [2] Telluduh ridak mengaku savan nan mmla hrcara namaaap nenuaunan lusebm. 5/N n1AK3zFKXx05k0Nvwonm|lw “Nun: sm.‘ ,..u..mu .. mad w my ». mmm -mm; fluumlnl n. IVMNG Wm! KES psumxwum [:1 Seramaw Mg; (3; many saksr pendakwaan Ielan dlpanggll urnuk memhen keleranaan lanlu 0; Hasman bum Smag (SF1)seIaku mu Iefluduh dan Isten slmafl (up Dr Mohamed Amuu Bm mmmm (SP2) semku pakav beuah s\zsa|dan mu) ASP Svekvam all SS\nna\ah (spa) se\aku P¢§awaI penylasal [4] Pmik nendakwaan Inga Ielah berganmng kepana 6zkIa~6akva yang mperseuqm dalam perundmgan sebemm pevbncavaan ianu pevselujuan berluhs henankh us1o2uz3 1EksmbI( D) sens pevsenuuan bemms (ambanan nenam 11 to 2n2:-1(Eksmbn E) [51 Kedua-due Exsmnn D dan E le\ah unanaaungam uleh pmak pendakwaan‘ Kerluduh dan peguambe\a menumt sl72A(5] Kamm hnacara Jenayah 1KTJ]\/ing bemunyw sedemwin - Pamndmgnn senemm pertvcaman mm 11; (2; (J; (4) (5; Semua penzars yang dtaersem/m dalam pemndmgan seeerum pemmaram nlen peguambela dan pmak pendskwsan hendak/sh drbusl swam berm»: flan dnnndnlengam a/an tafludun peguamne/A flan pmx Pvvdakwl-n 5/N n1AK3zFKXx05k0NvwwmI/w “Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my .. mmm -mm; flwulnlnl n. IVMNG Wm! (3) rawasu hm Smau(Nn K/F 5112oe.12.51aa;1e|ah meninggfl durua. 11>; xamamzn sima|i dvsababkzn kecederzan yang anrammyz, (:1 kacederzan pad: slmall zdalah dlsehabkan pemuaian Ianuduh flan 1.1) pevbualan menu: yang menyebabkan xeuman ilu man dllakukan dervgan maid: bawan 5 3001:), my, 1:) alau mm DAPAIAN mnmman Tzwasil bin Sinag nlah mnninggal duma I451 Menurul knarannan sm mu mu lerluduh am man man, Tmmn bm Smag lelah merunggal duma pad: 11 11 21719 Kemillan simali disebabkan kecedelzan ylnq dialaminya m1 spz seraku pzkav palnkwgi yang memalznkan bedah slasal ke atzs nmau man member: kemevinyan bahawa (erdaval binyak kzcedevaan pad: swan nnlzra lam lermasuk mks-Iuka runs, kayak‘ le<>e(. lebim dr alas bahagan kepala‘ muka Iengam |angzn simali serla hujung Ibujan km nan hu]ungyan|e|un1uk kanan sumafi tum! Ierpmus [En] Menumt SP2, sehah kemalwan smum adalah (mum: lumpul ke kepzxa (‘blunt trauma :9 the head”) Sesahnan Iapovan bedah swzszl P173/19 Inn 11 112u19 wga dwkemukakan uau dilanda sehagav Eksmn-«rm [511 Menunn swz i-ma. sebflah pvuu vemmonu (F13) din Iebilallu kayu IP15) yang mrampu duvi Iemnal kei-man bolnh menyebabkan keoedeman yang dlalaml man man I) am n1AK3zFKXx05k0NvwwmI/w “um s.n.1 ...u..mu .. mad 1: my .. mm-1 -mm; flwulnlnl 1.. IVMNG wrm Kocldlrl pan. -Imam adlllh fliubabkm pubuaun unuaun [52] Berdasarkan kderangan SP1 ssna talus-Iaku yang mperseuqm u.-lam Exsmmx a dam 2, kecederaan-keceaeraan pada swan adalzh aknbal pethualan lemmuh Malah‘ pmak pembelnn mg: mun memparmvkencakxai . [533 Dalam pada I|u‘ mahksmsh mu berpuashall hahawz xeugamge elemen dw mas man beqaya dwbuklwkan nleh pemiakw-aan Ellmnn um an hlwlh - m (n), (ma), (c) Ihu (us) KK [sq Beikawan dengan ekamen keempal new elamen ma: olen (erludun. plhak pemnexaan Ielah hevgaruung sepenuhnya kepaoa pembelaan mak smman (“delence oflnsanllyj m hawah 5 an xx 1551 renew. dahum, :54 xx ada\an mnyalakan sepem henkul V :4 Pemuatan seseomny yang ndak sempuma akal Trdaklan msmadr mun... syrup: 1... yang dr/nkukarv oleh sessarang yang‘ pm mm mellkukarmya , arch sebab akamya wdak ssrvwuma, hdak bempaya msngelahm kezdaan psmuatan Nu, atav Oshawa spa yang drlakukarmya rlu same ada saran alau omwmn danger: undang-undsng {as} Pembelaan «max sluman (‘defence ofmsamr}/‘[ di bawall 5.64 xx nu hanya Ierpakaw apama pembelaan dapal memnuman hahawa waklu melakukan perhuatan cersehun xsnuduh (:7 lldak be-mpaya menqe|ahm keadaan pemuanan nu‘ «max berupaya menge|ahu1 apa yang mlakukanm Kn salah dan (Idak hempaya menuelallui ape yang dllakukarmya benawanan aengen unding-undang n 5/N n1AK3zFKXx05k0Nvwoum|lw “Nun: em.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my .. wrwmlhly mm; fluulnlnl n. JMNG Wm I571 Adam: unaanq-umann n‘/Ila bahawa Dembalaan Derlu membuklwkan pembexzan Imak sluman an bawah 5134 xx Irv alas Imbangan kebarangkahan. [5a1 Menurul Iapmn pemhalan forenswk pslluain (ms), semasa keuaman. (enuduh berada dalam keadaan memax yang tidak wzrzs flan tidak sedar akan swfal dan annex flanpada pemualan belmu [59] Sehaualmana flalam vs V Plum n Tuyut um (supra mama menyavaxan mmdur. Jugi Ildak beluuaya unluk mengelzhm hihawz nemuaran llrsebul mun ulah darn bananlznnin div? Hui undarlir undang [M1] Lapcrnn pemhalan fomnslk psuldmn (me) wubu| le\ah dlbeflma olah plnak penflakwaan lanpa apa-apa cahalan din/man pemkzmn Mallh. Dihzk Dandalwwazn |=Iah manggunapzkzw kenrnpulan dzlam ms oerm-n keadain tsrluduh ym wax «mam-Kan ke mihkamah unluk mbicardmn Sena mampu unluk membe\a an [51] an rpm negnu. pmzk pendakwaan lelah memmk kepada w v Mllblh Saul (15551 1 cm 159 umuk mannhullhkan blhawl D45 runya adalah haw menemukln saml id: lanuduh um dmadapkan u. mahkamah unluk umarakan dun mampu membela am dan bukumyn bagl Dembelaan Iwdak siuman di bawan 5 an xx [ex] Admah darmlan mankamah ml hahawn pp v uumn sn-1(-upu) dapzl dihazzkzn samz sekalu memzndanuknn m da\am kes lariehu|_ lipurin Davubalan yang dikemukikan hanyz menyenluh hnlang Inn msmcsnmnizyunaia om. yang uemvxxan, mahklmah (mug! aauam PP v Mllbnh sun (supra) wan msmutuskan sepem benkut — ~ 1: snnma be cmplvlussd mu /urpurpasu ol: 54 ollne Pm: Code. wnal need: 1.: be aslabltsned rs I-91! In my ma not mm 1; am n1AK3zFK><koskoNvwocmuw “Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my .. mmm -mm: flwulnlnl n. IVMNG wrm my .1 iru-nily amm uslabhshmq mal tho Accuaed was or unsound mind at ma lvnw nu mmmtltud Mu olhnoa. he mag in go further to asrannsn marovtharf-ll nu was incur-an ulknnwing an nanm a/mu ct.‘ or In; tn»: in was mcapnbh olknowlng what Inn was dalng was wrong .,m,,,,,,,y ,9 W. (P€rvekanan auamnam [63] Bag! kemudahan yemahamzn. Iangkapan hpuvin perubaun lenehm dmyalakan a. bawah Am _ ‘mums ms xlny nm mm slmwvfl sun. and svmvloms qr ., mm mental mm calisd -Mm Depmssrvs F’Sy¢HJsrx' much .5 mmaema ny H/09/ca! mmhmg 577a/muse demsmn and drsnnmmlsd bulmvnur Ax 2n. rim: 9: m. ullrnct, patient was aware olwlmne ls doing but am no: man mm wu wrong. Panenl has been started on nuanmm and al pvesm. his mental mu: m xlabre and he I: m In New ‘ (Denskanan dllambzhl [541 Sebagax hindlngan, Iapumn D45 lelah menyennm tenlang Isulegal msamry melalm pemya|aan bahawa samasa kqadwan. herluduh berada dalam keadaan menial yang hdak wares Lian um sedal am svfal dan akhal danpada pemuavan bellau sena mak bempaya unluk mengelamn bahawa perbuausn Iersebm afla\ah sanan dan nenemangan dan segl um.1ang—unv.1ang [as] Dalam emkaia Vain, Vapuran ms telan menyenhm lentang kedua duz wsu medical irvsamly sena legal msaruly yang perm drwuwdkan bagl Demakman psmhelaan uflak sluman an bawah s 94 KK u 5/N n1AK3zFKXkO5k0Hvwocm|lw “Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad n my .. mmm -mm; flwulnlnl n. IVMNG Wm! [ea] Bergandmn dengan kesmlpulan Iapman ms |ersehnl, adalah dapalan mankamah ml bahiwa lerluduh max bevuvava mengetahu keadaan pelbua|an behzu dan mak belupaya mengaanu: bahawa apa yang dllakukannya nu salah zlau beflzwanan dsngzn undangdlndang [an Vni dzpa| mrinau dan rakmana flxpersahqul aavam Ekshim D bahawa lenuduh betada an bdxk ndumya sekapas lmdzkzrmya mu ma\zh sedang duduk memkok semasa plhak polls sampal Tenuduh max melirlkin um selepas pemumannya nu alau mehmuskan pisau uemumng (pm dan kayu (P15) bemenaan saoalrxnya apamla dnanya man pulls eamang apa yang dflakukan olehnya‘ lerluduh |elah membelllahu nanawa bellau max canu apa-apa kerani sedang mm m da\am b x. (ea) sanamsnya memmn lapuran pamam (D46) ma‘ lenuuuh mempunyal delusl syak wasangka Ipersecurmy de/uxrun|_ delusi yang ganm belkenaan dmnya (mzane oeluswnj sens dehm mengsnar penukaran memm ldsmsron mmdenmcamm) Yenuduh juga ad: mendengav mswkan suara nalus (auanory nanucmanons) can halusmasu vvsual (visual ha/mcrnalronsj. [as] Kelerangan pemevlksaan memav Ienuduh belksvtan maucan were halus (auditory hallucmaltans) im adalah selaras dengan kaeyangsn dawn pemakapan Cerluduh m bawan 5.112 KTJ1Eks . n ms). khasm mengenax Vakla bahawa lenuduh lelah (erdengar suara da\am kepala yang memhenlammya un|uk melakukan penauacan nu sena mervgarallkan behau Im|uk mengambll pwsau pemnkmg (P13; aan kayu 1:-157 an dapur r/01 Selalas dengan kelevangzn pemeiksaan memax lefluduh mengenaw halusmasv v\sua\ (wsual ha!/uctnafinns), ms dan keterangan 15 am n1AK3zFKXx05k0Nvwonm|lw “Nun: sm.‘ ,..u..mu .. mad a my ». am.“-V -mm; fluumlnl n. IVMNG Wm! SP3 (p-aglwsl penwasatj harm mnnumukknn Ianuduh (Mun nampzk Vemhigi nxau kzyu dun hukzn hapanya yang larbarmg di marry Iamu nu Jug: zksmmn n @ pelselujuan hemms menunjukkarl lenuduh man mengmdap penyzlul scluzaplvrerlfa mm comorbrd substance use dlxardar cm pemah mendspai uwmn nan pnmah menflapm rawalnn pnklam a. Klnuk Pslkmn flan Knsmalan Menlnl‘ nospnau Kuala Lumpuv dlbmlahun 2011 hlnqui 2014 din mu Hoapwm Kaunng rm Sqavah penyam pslklam xmuaun adalah selavns dengan kelerangan mu lenuduh Q-am Mlsalarmyz. (enudun «max menevulkmu dengan rawzlan susulan yang umankén Is - ggl gemagejala ptnynkll lurluduh m.n,..1. mun menu, di mam terluduh hwy: mengumng dlnnya aw damn m-nan, smug bevkelakuan pellk dan mangzbalkan paluagaan senz keherslhan am [11] Juslzm nu‘ kehadaan vawalan susulan yang dmrahkun cemn memburuklum llgw gqala-gush penyakn Cenuduh sehlnuga mamhawa kepada pelhualan up lersebul olah Iemmuh my mlhm on H 2019 [74] Damn pain nu, adalah dapaan mahkamah nu hzhawa hlarpnm (enunuh |elah melakukan kesabhan membunuh bapanya, nirnun. dalam kezdzzn am yang udak waras. hem max berupaya mengelamn keadnn parbuflln helrau dun udak hempaya mengelamn hahawa apa yang dflakukannya nu salah am: beniwanan dengan undlngflndzng KESIMPULAN [751 (Men nu wennduh flibebaskan dan penufluhan m hawah 5 :02 xx nus nlasnn nakn avak benkulan 5 :47 KTJ [76] Akan canon, memandangkan mahkamah mendapan Ielluduh |e\ah melakukan pemara yang mevupakan asas pelluduhan an Dawn 5 302 KK, 1; am n1AK3zFKXk05k0NvwopmUw “Nun: sum! ...n..mn .. mod n my .. wwmlhly mm: flummlnl n. mune punt‘ mahkamah Im memerinlahkan zgav terluduh mkumng Gan anenakkan dlbawah Asgaan Human Bahama m um xuma, Perak bank-nan s 343 KTJ, unmk sebelzpa Vama menglkul kehendak Dull Yang Maha Mulla Faduka Sen Bagmda Sultan Negen Selangor Daml Ehsan Lapovzn zkan msedlalcan untuk pemauan Baqnnaa. Suflan selangor Dam! Ehsan Bavlankh Dad: 2 rm Ncvemhev 2023 (wzunv 00 u cuss) Pesmuhja a Kahaklman Mahlumah Tinggu Shah Alam Fmakrmhak Pendakwaan Tuan Muhamad Flvdzuus hm Mahamed ldns TImha\an Pendakwa Raw danpada Kama! Penn-nan Undina-Undana Nluen selango. Peguambela . Yeluin law mamas av Ramque Shah Alam, Selangnr :7 am n1AK'ixFKXk05k0Hwaovm|lw “Nun: sm.‘ ,...n.mu .. uxafl n my n. unvmuhlv -mm; flwumlnl n. IVMNG Wm! 5/N mAK3zFK><xo5xwv~oumuw “Nun: sm.‘ runbirwm n. mad w my ». mmm mm; fluunnlnl w. -HUNG Wm! [51 Benkman s172E(B) KN, Eksmbll D din E hendaklah ditenmz sebagal buklldalam perbncaraan ml : 1725(5) KTJ adaxan dinyalakan m bawah Am- Pungumsankoa 172541; . (27 . (3) 41; 15; . (5) Wzfau spa pun penmlukan Akin Klfsllngan ma, semua ptrkam yang mount sear: bsrlurls dun dvlandalangam dnngirv wa,.my. Nah Iamlduh. pngusmbelanyl dun pmu pcnflakwian m buwnh subssksyun 172451 hondaldah drlsnma ssbagsl mm: ah/am pmm...n lenuduh m Dalam Dada inn‘ beniasarkan ke|erangan sm-spa Sena Ekshim D dan E‘ kes pendakwaan ma-a nngkainyi auzran sepem bevlkln [51 Fuda on 11 2019 jlm lehih kuvzng a nu malam, Hnylm bum Tawasu (No KI?‘ a2na1n»12~5256) Ckaknk \enuduh') barsama dangan Ibunyi sm lshh makun muam bnrnma German iimali dx mmzh manakala Iefluduh berida as dalam mu m Salapas nu, mmall new new a. Ilia Imlai mung Iamu |empa| kejudwan manakzl: ss-1 lldur at mum mg. Kakak muuun baud: dv mam bwlik mum darn (Shh mamusunu um devxgln mtmnkal um cenngn denaan bunyn Kuat Oleh nu‘ kzkak terluduh lidak Iahu apa Iuhh betlaku :11 ‘um um hdumya‘ m um<3zrmosm<w«»muw “Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my a. mm-y mm. flnuunlnl n. IFVLING wrm mu Pada a911.2o19j.rn Vebwh kmanu 11 mahm. Ismasa SP1 mm dzlzm hilik kuliua man mm: kerana dengar jerllan smu dengan kziz ‘Jmgan spa un VA Allah‘ vn Allah, YA A//ah ' [111 Pm mas: yang sama, sm plga dengar bunyw Dukulln, seolan. clan ad: seeming pukul nrnaxn alah r1u.SP1 Inrux hangun dun bergagas buka pmlu din nampik lartuduh henna m Ming |amu smug msmeqanu kayu flan sedang manghayun kayu Ive arah umau an memukul av man: mnau yang Iedung duduk an mas lama: dan kedua— aua «angan meughuhng pukman s1ma1i (12: SP1 wan menjem vamu jungun /angan‘ dan Ivlbvla lenuduh mnnoleh kepala ke arah sru dzn memindang srw dengan macs mum on menu. s1=1 berasa Iakul unluk tengok muka wwaun ylng dilzm keadaan marsh lam Ielah man ksmav din mmah din pergi ke ponaak pengawan xeseummzn unmk memima penolonuan 11:] SP1 man memhanlzhu flu: 42; pengavvm kc Ilamnan ylng herlugai mum. Inalmyu mum menalak din mamuknl sunan rnaka kedua-dun plr1gawn\k:sa1nmman(elah menemani s1=1 ka mmalulyl [141 mu Lvmbu yang mempakan salah saalang pengawzl keselamalan mendlpam Cenumm sedang memegzng sabihh man an duauk an au: 131.131 many Damn maka |idak mam masuk ks dalam mmln flan kemudlan «em. memberkln «amen bmmn kepidl sr»1 unlnk unangmmunm pans din wga ambman: [15] Pzdz 10.11 Zfl191am1eb1h Kuling ms pagl, Kpl Mann Ferdues hm Omman lalah memabdumkan kepafla 1<p< Sanly hm Ahmad (‘Kw SIn\y')du1 Kmsl Mahd Helm|Fa1zul hm cm Ramhn (‘Karat Helm‘) yang sedang mambual rondaan m ktwnan Denladbuan 12.13. pals at s Chara: bahlwa ¢e1dapa| um kajadlan gaduh until: anzk new din 5/N mAK3zFKxA<oskos1vmpmuw “um s.n.1...n1.m11.,. mad 1: 1...», .. nrwmlhly mm: flnulnlnl 1.. -Hum M1 zyavmya di temps: kejadxan den celah mengarallkan mereka ke lokasl nanebun. [151 Pzda m 11 2mg um I-um kumg 12 15 pagiy Kpl Sznly hersama Konst Helm? man sampai m lnkasr lzrsebul Kpl Samy lelah bariumya flengan (SP1) clan dvmaklumkzn bahzwa hahawa ten-mum (clan menelak suammya yang sedang Mural many tamu. [111 Kyl Snnly, Kansl Helm: din SF1 man masuk ke da\am mmah temps: keiadian av man: xpr samy mendipih uolung Iehlu xailu umah lemannu ax alas lam ruana hmu dalam keadaan bevmmuvan darih um Ispirull sedar sena xeraapax Iuki an bahugtan muki. kenzla dan ;ari lshmjuk langan kanan Ielah pulus dan fll§YaklkESiIH91ikIlV mm [13] 5:71 |e|ah menauk pm nmx kakak muaun dangan mu dan msmintt kemar din bi umuk lengak hipanyl sm hlah mambenmm kakzk (enuduh lervtanu spa ylnfi man beflaku. Apabiz kaknk lenuduh ksluar an 2) \ bellau nampak s-mam beradi as us: lanai da\am keadaan bevlumulan damn dangan letakan di muka. kepala dart langan [12] Pan: min ymg um, klkak |enuduh nampak lardapn mm. plsau poimlu dagmg (F13) den ssh: hI|:nq kzyu (P15; yang mempunyau kuan darah hsmampvin man, Kakak lanuduh Iallh marumjukkan ma dan P15 Ivrsebm kepada Kw Sanly Kemudlan kakak mudun Ielah mengamml kedua—dua iemata lersebut dan melelakkan ax vu-r Nmah kevana ram lenuduh kamar din bvhk akan mengammr seruzra tersebul pa] sewn nu‘ Knl Saniy |eIah menendang pmlu mun muaun semngga lnmuki aan nlmpak (enuduh sadzng duduk .1. am lanlal sambfl mengmsav rokok [11] Kplsanlyuelun manyuruh larluduh keluardan mun flan henanya apa yang mlakukan Manny: map. |erluduh membevilahu lndak um apaapa 5 am mAK3zFK><A<oskwvwovmuw “Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my a. urwmnhlv -mm: m.m. y.. mum wrm kerana helnau uadnng mm an aanam bxl . J-mam rlu‘ Km saniy «gun menangkzp larluduh [211 Semasa Kpl Samy menyuvuh xenuduh keluur am bluknya. mum jug: menuruukkun barnng-barang yang mgunakan semasa kepdwan Ianu xebuah puau pamomng berukuvzn panjang labih kuulw 23 5 cm henzndz H1 (my um lab Ing kzyu blrulmrm ynnjanu Iemh kurang 60cm benandi H2 (P15) an lempal kapdvarl kapada Kpl Samy Kudua— dun semala ma dzn P15 lelah dibawa hIHk alah Km Samy ke halal poi: un|uk mmankan kepada Imp Kunaahn nn Udiasoarian mnsp Kunaalan“) unluk sxasalan lanjul Sam Iaporzn polis an Chara:/1 7917/19 (P26) Ie\ah dibuat men Km samy 12:1 snnau man fllhznlav ke Zon Krifikat Jlbaum Kaceminn Hospnax Kauanq Menumt on Nursyazwin hm Mona Yuwl, slmah hemdi dalam keadaan kntlkal. bermmuvan damn levulamarlya di bahaqlzn kapala dzn dilim keadaan senavuh sedan ‘Chance o/survrvaf bag! swmah idihh rendah. [u] Haiil pamunksaln Iumn keulumlun badan -Imall unnnaapan Ierliapll vetakan Mang an bahaglan langan kznan. mi Ieluniuk tangzn kanindl bahnman hujung plllui. ibu an kvvi an uanaman lwwnfi ma: Dmus manakaxa dw bahaqlan kepala (evdapit rnoezanon wound pad: bahagwan dam kanan sambung ke bawah lush Km sena Kesan luka an bananlan km muka sxmam smamexan msahkan meninggal dunia pada M 11 2019 [am Iebm kuvang 12 so pagv [251 Pad: 1011 2019 [am lehm kmanq 5 so pagin lnsv Kunaalan man merampas pikawan yang mpaka. nlemenuduh vailu sehalax x-anm bevkolar berwama nuau bellanda H1 (P1611) darn sehelal seluav Aeans [enema 5/N n1AK3zFKXk05k0NvwopmUw “Nut: sum ...na.mn a. mad a M», n. urwmlhly mm: fluulnlnl n. mune mm! Levis berwama him ge\ap henanda H2 (pmxy Salu lapolan polrs many/41407/19 (p25) |eIah dIbua| uleh msp K\maa\an [as] Pad: 11112018 jam lehm kurang 915 paw, sps (pegiwnv penyrasal) man mananma pm. P15‘ pm dan pm danpadz lnsp Kunaahn [211 P-da u 112mg pm labia kulang 1020 pagi, spa Apsgawm penyilizl) balsam: wrmolo Kpv Mohammnd N:'Am Em Idem: (“Kpl Mum-1 dun upasukan mm fvveniik dan Ibu Pqahzl Kominpen upx; Selzngav wng dlkehm oleh ms»: Mohlmert Anwan bm Ahmad Tivmizl (‘D/SM Arman’) carat. pergl = lempal kejzdian my D. sana‘ spa |elah mengavahknn jumialn Kpl Ntwm mengnmml 11 keplrlg namblr umpan kajadizn |pm.m1. spa mga lelah mevukws gambarapah kaur Xumpa| k man (P39). [291 Pads 11 H 2019 Jam Kebih kurang 12 on xengan nan, n/sun Anwan man menyevzhkan kepada spa hevsama dengan harang semhllzllma Danny has (p:w>- AI) Wtelah nmpul baml AI) mbmg darah henanda No x . dnznda vs (PIGA) an (1) umpm new (1) swabmg dlrah hananua Na 2 —mlnnd|V6|P19A)dnn(c)(1)umpu\hansI(1|swIb1ng davlh henamia Na. 3 — dilanda v7 (pzum Pam. pm .1... p2nA (alnh dramw o\eh nrsm Anwan flari Oamval kayaduan. [301 pm :1 11.2019 ‘am lehm kurang :25 pm, mayal slmall lelah me-mk-n oleh spu bevnma denqan spa sebahln bedah nasal a.,.m.m ke am nimali ohh Doklov Mohamsd Azsml bin Ibrahim 4sp2; dl nospnar Kmang‘ Semngar [:11 spa lelah mengarahkan jurmmn Km Na‘Im mengambu 113 kephwg gzmbzv poslmarlem [p3(1—1van m mAK3zFK><A<oskoNvwwmuw “Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my a. mm-y -mm: flnuunlnl n. IFVLING wrm [:21 man man illsal marraaparr punca kemanun aua h lraum: lumpul kc kanaxa (‘blunt rrarrma lo ma head? P13 din P15 yzng dlrampu din lampal kqadlan hnleh menyebahkan keoedevaan yang aiararrri aleh srrrram [ax] Pad: 11 11.21119. spz man mengrlmbnl nmpel-umpal aarr lubuh Iimah dan man menyavahkan keplda SP3 Senam spemman zdzlah sepem yang berikm (:7 kerihn kuku seoahh kinln nim »div.andI vs (P21A) (bj xeman kuku nbohh km slmlll — urrarraa ve u>22Ay 1:; npeumen dirih (rm Cum) srrrrzn — dilanda vm mam dan (a) saasimerr darzh simau \m|uk wan rarsurologr — dnanda v12 (PI 1A-up [:41 Pad: 12 H mm akmiblhakubil P13. P15. mm, Mm mam mam Pzoa, Pzm PZZA can P24A»B (2 cm npeslmen damn larumuh) bevsama aenu-n bcranu pal 31 (P :4 din P35) Inlah mselahkan kapada arm klmxa Wan Zallna mmi Wan Fzszal (‘Wan Za|ina') dr Jabxian Kmua Malaysra. Raarmsn mm. krma dangan ncmhor makmal r9.m.a.2am was an >37; (e\ah dikeluarkan [:51 Pan. ca 5 mm jam lzhm kumng 12 29 |enqzh hzn, zhh klnua Wan Znhna (emu menyevahkan samlflz kasemua aksmbd barsena dengan Iapuran kimva dannan narrrbor makmal 19-FR-E-ZEIE7 (P35) H-sul analisa mlnunjukkin profll om yang arperaxem dari F13, F15. P2flA PZIA, P22A, berpadanan dengan pmlil mm srrraan [:51 Pan: 1311 2019 ‘am we peaangr rakarrran pemzkapan dalam psmunksaan ranuaun ar hawah 5112 KTJ |elah dlzmbfl nus) [an Paaa 21112015, mas pennlah Mamraman Mausuel Kajang, Selangar. Ienudnm Ielah dlmjuk ke Nuspilal Bahagu um «um. Penk un|uk pamenkuan menm. 5/N n1AK3zFKXk05k0NvwopmUw “Nun: sum ....r..mu r. was In vuvfiy .. urwmlhly mm: fluulnlnl n. ul’\uNG Mr [an Haswl pemenlsaan mental Iefluduh adahh Vaporan p-erubatan forensik pswkiahl Hospital Bahagla Ulu Kama, Peri: benafikh 31 12 2019 (Eksmbn D46). [39] Kesunpulan alah vikzv Dilkiahi Dr Szvamah smu Mend Isa a. Pevenggan 22 lapuran we adulih sepam benkuI- {.; Ennk «mm am Tawuv! mlngmdap Mnynk/I shvxalvsma I-Icmzoulwnmf can pamm ram: (ommmr umm-1. 1»; Samaaa ks/edvan sepovll dvdahwn pm snzm, n. u mm. mm knudnirv mpnlul ylny nd-x wars: dun mm s..m.k... gnu dun .xra.: «ma: pemualnn bvlmu sen: bdnk nanmayn unruk nlungatahm mm pemuatin tmseom mam snlan .4... bcrfsrvlnrvgln din stgr'uIIdIII9<unI1arvy my Keadasn menml behsu Ialsh beflambnh bmk mg... rlwatln yang amen dan sdalsh many! pm mm. lspman mi auuns Bellzu layzk vtmadaakan ke mahkamah unmk dnmcamkan wna manuzu umukmembela dm >Iu.wuN PENDAKWAAN my Berduurknn kepaaa kelevangan sm — spa. Persehuuan Benulls henankn us to 2023 1EksnIbwl D) an 5 ans ekshvbll-ekshibil lam yang mkemukakan‘ pmlk pendnkwnn mcnghulahkan bahuwl pmlk vandikwuarl ml.» bunny: mambuklwkan um kn: pmvm Incrs larhidap can-mun [41] Milan‘ larluduh layzk dmadapkan kc mahkamah unmk dlmcamkan sen: m-mpu Unluk membela am am um<3zrmosm<w«»muw “Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mad w my a. mm-y mm. flnuunlnl n. IFVLING wrm nunnm PEIIIBELAAN [421 Fengmqahan pembexaan mam: secava daiamya, plhak pendakwaln |e\ah gagu membukukan e\emen ma! aleh Ienumm urnuk membnnuh man Pmak panmavaan mengmanxan wenuduh lldak mempunyal sehzrzng mal unluk membunun uman dixeblhkan pm mm kapaduan‘ Ierwduh hand: dawn kaadaan memav yang mu wan: din mak sedar akan sila| din ak\b:| pevhuman balm: urn max beruyaya malluatahm baluwl perhuilan (arsebm adalah sahh flan beflenlinuan flan segl undangmndarlg [A11 s<¢..m sepem pp v Plum n ruyn Mll (w/vmn-m) mm] 5 MLJ «:4, up w Jnll Knnnl [2n11] MLRAU 123 dun PP v suk-min sum [ms] 1 LNS 1511 mm dlrupuk bag! menyokonq penghnqahan pnmbolsin mangenax xsu ml [44] Dalam pads nu, pmak pembelaan memahnn zqav lerluduh dllepas nan mhehaskan setavas dangan 5.341 dan 3 34: Karma Knsekuan UNDANGJJNDANG [451 Manuvuts 1BU(1)KTJa spams kes penaakwaananum mahknmah hendaldah memmhangkan sama aaa pmak pendakwaan lehh memmumkan kes puma fame lemadaw ten-mun [451 Un|uk membukflkan suaxu kas puma /me, ymak pandakwazn yum mtngemukaknn kemmngan yang wen mpercayav yang membuklvkan map unsur kesalanan yang jlka Mak dwanqkal auu max duelaslun akan mewflarkan sualu salman (Ml: hhal s mum KTJ) [:11 Junevu nu‘ as dalam ks: mu unsur kesuahun /elemzmelemen yang perm dnbukukin men mm pendakwaan aaanan sepcfll henkul in am n1AK3zFKXk05k0Nvwo9m|lw “Nun: sm.‘ ...u..mm .. mod w my .. wrwmlhly mm; fluulnlnl n. JMNG Wm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

AA-22NCvC-22-03/2021

PLAINTIF CHOONG NAM FATHER & SONS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD DEFENDAN CHARERN PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Civil Procedure - Writ of Summons - Extension of Writ The Plaintiff applied for an extension after the writ's validity period. - Whether the court is in a position to exercise its discretionary power to extend the writunder Rules of Court 2012, O 6 r 7(2). Whether the plaintiff can be blamed when the Judgment in Default and the order for substituted service are set aside after the writ's validity period. Whether, should the court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under O 92 r 4 of the ROC in such cases Whether the court should retain the inherent power to extend the writ beyond the limit expressly set by O 6 r 7(2) to prevent injustice.cases - Whether the court should retain the inherent power to extend the writ beyond the limit expressly set by O 6 r 7(2) to prevent injustice.

15/12/2023

YA Tuan Moses Susayan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=803cac53-a2f4-49c5-b578-47e9f1b8305b&Inline=true

GOJ Choong Nam Father & Son Construction SB v Charern Properties SB (FINAL).pdf 1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH 5 IN THE STATE OF PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN CIVIL SUIT NO.: AA-22NCvC-22-03/2021 BETWEEN 10 CHOONG NAM FATHER & SONS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (Company No. : 390705-U) PLAINTIFF AND CHARERN PROPERTIES SDN BHD 15 (Company No. : 95687-A) DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 20 [1]. This is the Plaintiff application for an extension for the validity of a Writ issued on 16 March 2021. [2]. On 16 March 2021, both the Writ and Statement of Claim were formally filed. Subsequently, attempts were made to serve this Writ 25 on the Defendant at their business address in Ipoh. Unfortunately, both methods of delivery, the AR Registered post and personal service, were unsuccessful. As an alternative, the Plaintiff sought and obtained an order from the court on 1 June 2021 to serve by substitute service. By 16 August 2021, the Plaintiff had secured a 30 15/12/2023 16:53:48 AA-22NCvC-22-03/2021 Kand. 73 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Judgment in Default. However, a turn of events saw the Defendant successfully having this Judgment in Default, along with the Order for substitute service, set aside on 4 January 2023. Given these circumstances, the Plaintiff is now constrained to extend the validity of the Writ of Summons to ensure its proper service on the 35 Defendant. [3]. According to the Defendant's calculations, there was a delay of 1 year and 4 months after the expiry of the Writ. The Writ was issued on March 16, 2021, and its validity ended on September 16, 2021. 40 However, the Plaintiff filed an application for an extension on January 20, 2023, which was not submitted before the expiry of the Writ. This delay constitutes a breach of Order 6 Rule 7(2A) of the Rules of Court (ROC) 2012, forming the basis of the Defendant's contention. 45 Plaintiff's Submission [4]. The Plaintiff applies at the heart of this case to extend the Writ from 16 March 2021. To succeed, the Plaintiff needs to ensure that the application is in line with Order 6 Rule 7(2A) of the ROC 2012. The 50 Plaintiff submits that even though the issued Writ on 16 March 2021 was due to expire on 15 September 2021 (6 months), they effectively stopped the timeline by obtaining the Judgment in Default on 16 August 2021. This left remaining a month more before expiration. However, when the court set aside the Judgment and the 55 Order for substitute service on 4 January 2023, it brought forward the remaining one-month period. This according to the Plaintiff gave S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 them until 3 February 2023 from 4 January 2023 to request an extension. Hence the filing of the application on 20 January 2023, the Plaintiff submits that they met the time period of 6 years provided 60 for under Order 6 Rule 7(2A) of ROC 2012. To support their contention, the Plaintiff refers to the case of Ever Rich Enterprise v Ten Mei Theng [2019] 1 MLRH 194. This case suggests that the timeline should not run straight from the Writ's original date, especially if there's an acquired Judgment in Default that is later set 65 aside. [5]. This is what the court said in Ever Rich Enterprise v Ten Mei Theng [2019] 1 MLRH 194: 70 adalah bertarikh 7 Januari 2013. Tempoh tamatnya enam bulan daripada 7 Januari 2013 adalah pada 6 Julai 2013. Satu Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran telah diperolehi pada 19 April 2013. Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran tersebut telah diketepikan oleh defendan pada 9 Januari 2018. Lantas permohonan 75 pembaharuan Writ Saman di bawah Lampiran 28 ini difailkan pada 8 Jun 2018. Justeru itu masa tidak harus dikirakan secara berterusan daripada tarikh Writ Saman & Januari 2013 sehingga permohonan pembaharuan Writ Saman 9 Jun 2018. Dalam meneliti perkara ini, suatu Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran adalah 80 merupakan suatu pengakhiran kepada tindakan ini, di mana tempoh Writ Saman akan berhenti pada tarikh Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran, 19 April 2013. Sekiranya Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran tersebut tidak diketepikan, maka Writ Saman akan masih mempunyai baki masa dalam tempoh tiga bulan lagi 85 daripada tarikh Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran sehingga tarikh tamatnya tempoh asal keesahan Writ Saman (19 April 2013 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 hingga 6 Julai 2013). Justeru itu Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran tersebut telah menghidupkan semula Writ Saman daripada 9 Januari 2018, di mana tempoh keesahan Writ Saman 90 tersebut bermula daripada tarikh 9 Januari 2018 dengan baki tempoh keesahan yang tertinggal. Dengan itu, Writ Saman akan tamat tempoh keesahannya pada atau ketika 8 April 2018. [6]. The Plaintiff firmly bases their application on several provisions of 95 the Rules of Court 2012, which, when considered together, reinforce the court's commitment to upholding the principles of justice over procedural technicalities. [7]. To begin with, the Plaintiff refers to Order 1A of the ROC 2012, 100 which explicitly underlines the significance of appreciating the all- embracing interest of justice. In simpler terms, this Order encourages courts to consider the broader scope of fairness and justice, rather than focusing on in minor procedural or mere technical non-compliance. This principle suggests that the core 105 focus should remain on ensuring the interest of justice, even if minor technicalities have to be overlooked in the process. It articulates that courts should not be swayed solely by procedural non-compliance. Instead, the primary consideration should always be the interest of justice. This provision underscores the judiciary's responsibility to 110 ensure that justice prevails, even if it means overlooking minor technical breaches: Regard shall be to justice (O. 1A) S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 In administering these rules, the court or a Judge shall have regard 115 to the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical non- [8]. Next, they highlight Order 3 rule 5 of the ROC 2012. This provision is crucial as it grants the court significant discretion in matters of 120 time frames. Specifically, the court possesses the inherent jurisdiction to either extend or abridge the time as defined in the rules. Such flexibility is essential, especially in cases where strict adherence to stipulated time frames might lead to unjust outcomes or hinder the pursuit of justice. 125 Extension of time (O. 3, r. 5) 1) The court may, on such terms as it thinks just, by order extend or abridge the period within which a person is required or authorized by these rules or by any judgment, 130 order or direction, to do any act in any proceedings. 2) The court may extend any such period as referred to in paragraph (1) although the application for extension is not made until after the expiration of that period. 135 3) The period within which a person is required by these rules, or by any order or direction, to serve, file or amend any pleading or other document may be extended by consent in writing without an order of the court being made for that 140 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [9]. To further bolster their argument, the Plaintiff refers to Order 6 rule 7 of the ROC 2012. This rule goes into the specifics of how a writ's lifespan is determined and the circumstances under which its 145 renewal can be sought. By mentioning this, the Plaintiff aims to show their deep understanding of the procedural intricacies related to their application and emphasize that their request for extension aligns with the prescribed procedure to extend a writ's validity. Two requirements must be met to allow extension and they are:- 150 a) The application for extension must be made before the original writ expires. b) Must furnish evidence showing earnest attempts to deliver the writ to the Defendant within a month of its original issuance.155 [10]. Order 6 rule 7 of the ROC 2012, provides as follows: Duration and renewal of writ (O. 6, r. 7) (1) For the purpose of service, a writ (other than a concurrent writ) 160 is valid in the first instance for six months beginning from the date of its issue, and a concurrent writ is valid in the first instance for the period of validity of the original writ which is unexpired at the date of issue of the concurrent writ. 165 (2) Subject to paragraph (2A), where efforts to serve a writ on a defendant have been unsuccessful, the court may by order extend the validity of the writ twice (in Sabah and Sarawak thrice and in admiralty actions five times), not exceeding six months at any one time, beginning with the day next following that on 170 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 which it would otherwise expire, as may be specified in the order. (2A) An application for a renewal of writ must be made before the expiry of the writ, ex parte by notice of application supported by affidavit showing that efforts have been made to serve the 175 defendant within one month from the date of the issue of the writ and that efforts have been made subsequent thereto to effect service. (3) Before a writ, the validity of which has been extended under this 180 rule, is served, it shall be marked with an official stamp in Form 3 showing the period for which the validity of the writ has been so extended. (4) Where the validity of a writ is extended by order made under 185 this rule, the order shall operate in relation to any other writ (whether original or concurrent) issued in the same action which has not been served, so as to extend the validity of that other writ until the expiration of the period specified in the order. 190 (5) [11]. The Plaintiff's reliance on the case of Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal [2009] 1 MLRA 528,195 focuses on the court's emphasis on the efforts and diligence required of the applicant to effect service. It is acknowledged that compliance with the conditions set forth in Order 6 rule 7 of the ROC 2012 is mandatory. The court stated as follows: S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 O 6 r 7(2A) of the RHC, there are three requirements 200 that must be adhered to before the court can grant a renewal of writ. The first requirement is for the renewal to be made before the writ expired. The application also must be made ex parte through summons and supported by an affidavit which identifies two starting points which are: the efforts have been made to serve the defendant in one month 205 from the date of issuance of writ; and such efforts have been made subsequent thereto to effect service. (paras 36 & 39) (2) Renewal of writ by the court can only be made when O 6 r 7(2A) of the RHC has been satisfied. The applicant must use all due diligence to 210 effect service as soon as possible. In order to grant extension, the court must be satisfied that serious efforts have been made to serve through the details provided in the affidavits as to where, when and how attempts to serve are made. (para 40) 215 (3) The requirements of O 6 r 7(2A) of the RHC are mandatory prerequisite. The applications by the respondents for extension of time for service of writs were defective as they did not show compliance with the RHC. (para 43) (4) O 1A RHC is a general provision that is not in the position to supersede a mandatory requirement of the Rules. O 1A 220 RHC cannot be invoked when a party purposely chooses to disobey the provision. Thus in this case, O 1A of the RHC did not apply as the respondents had purposely disregarded the O 6 r 7(2A) of the RHC for their own reasons. O 1A of the RHC could not be invoked in order to cure the failure to comply with the pre-requisites of O 6 r 7(2A) of the 225 (underlined is the emphasis) [12]. Lastly, the Plaintiff invokes Order 92 Rule 4 of the ROC 2012. This Order serves as a testament that the court has broad and inherent 230 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 jurisdiction. It is not just about ensuring the strict adherence of the and judicial duty to ensure fairness in its proceedings. The rule explicitly mandates the court to act decisively in the interest of justice or against any potential misuse of its processes, ensuring 235 that the scales of justice remain balanced. Order 92 r. 4 of ROC 2012 provides as follows: Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92, r. 4) 240 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 245 [13]. In summary, the Plaintiff, by referencing to the principle postulated by the case of Ever Rich Enterprise (supra) and these other distinct provisions from the Rules of Court 2012, seeks to build a compelling case, emphasizing both the letter and spirit of the law. They aim to highlight that their application for renewal of the writ 250 aligns not just with the procedural mandates but also resonates with the underlying principles of justice and fairness that the rules seek to uphold. The circumstances of the case are such that it is by no fault of the Plaintiff that the application for extension had to be made by the Plaintiff. As early as 19 March 2021 and 15 May 2021, the 255 Plaintiff has attempted to serve the Writ on the Defendant, but was unable to serve. Due to these difficulties, they resorted to substituted service and obtained an Order for substituted service on 1 June S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 2021. Following this, they successfully effected service on 16 August 2021 and obtained a Judgment in Default. However, both 260 this judgment and the Order for substituted service were set aside, rendering the writ, issued on March 16, 2021, expired due to its six- month validity period. When the Judgment in Default and the substituted service were set aside on January 4, 2023, the writ was no longer valid, through no due to no fault of the Plaintiff. In essence, 265 the Plaintiff is seeking to show that their application for renewal is justified, given the circumstances and their diligent attempts to adhere to both the letter and spirit of the law in serving the Writ on the Defendant. Defendant Submission 270 [14]. A central tenet of the Defendant submission revolves around the apparent discrepancies in the Plaintiff's submission concerning the Writ's validity. In one place, the Plaintiff says the Writ was valid until 3 February 2023. But in another place, they say it expired on 15275 September 2021. It must be noted that this is not inconsistent submission by the Plaintiff but an alternative submission as stated in the preceding paragraph. [15]. The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff waited a long time to serve 280 on the Defendant the Writ after the decision of the court on 4 January 2023, to setting aside the JID and substituted service. It must be noted that as at the time when the JID and substituted service were set aside, the writ according to the Defendant had S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 already expired on 15 September 2021. The Plaintiff on the other 285 hand takes two views. One following e (supra), which suggests a peculiar "freeze-and-unfreeze" mechanism regarding a Writ's validity i.e. upon entering of default judgment the time freezes and unfreezes upon the substituted service and Judgment in Default being set aside. The other view is 290 the same as the Defendant. [16]. The Plaintiff's foundational argument is based on Ever Rich , which suggests a peculiar "freeze-and- unfreeze" mechanism regarding a Writ's validity upon entering of 295 default judgment and subsequently setting aside the default judgment. The Defendant has some reservation about the principle postulated in Ever Rich En (supra) as it is without any other supporting decided case. Therefore, the Defendant submits that this argument of the Plaintiff is not well founded and it 300 is not consonant with the Rules of Court 2012. [17]. Additionally, the Defendant underscores the distinction between the present case and (supra), wherein in that case the substituted service was valid but in our present case 305 both the JID and SSO were set aside. In any event, I am not persuaded in determining this case one way or another on this distinction on the facts of the respective cases. [18]. In w Fimbank 310 Plc v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of The Ship or 324. The S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 High Court in this case examined the changes in Order 6 Rule 7, of the ROC 2012 particularly since its amendment on September 21, 2000. The court noted that before this date, there was no limit on315 the number of times a writ could be renewed, provided a reasonable explanation was given for its non-service. However, amendments introduced several changes: the initial validity of a writ was reduced from 12 to 6 months, the number of extensions was capped and it was mandated that any extension request must be made before the 320 writ's expiry. These amendments were aimed at addressing the need to limit the number of extensions a writ could have, with certain allowances based on geography and case type, like admiralty actions. 325 [19]. Based on these amendments, the Defendant concludes that this Honourable Court should not override the provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 of the ROC 2012 using its inherent jurisdiction, considering the deliberate and considered changes made by the Rules Committee. 330 Court inding Good Faith of the Plaintiff: [20]. The Plaintiff promptly initiated the legal action and subsequently attempted to serve the Writ on the Defendant. The timeline and 335 Defendant and this suggests no deliberate delay. S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [21]. The Plaintiff, after facing failed attempts of service through AR Registered and personal means, did not resort to inaction but 340 proactively sought the Court's leave to serve by substituted service. The Order for substitute service shows the Court's initial acceptance . [22]. The Plaintiff secured a Judgment in Default due to the Defendant's 345 non-response, further showing the Plaintiff's proactive approach. [23]. When the Court set aside the substitute service and the Judgment in Default, the Plaintiff, rather than resorting to inaction, sought to correct the situation by extending the Writ's validity. This move 350 underscores the Plaintiff's commitment to ensure that due process is complied with. The fault, if any of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff did not apply instantly to the court which set aside the Default Judgment and the Order for substituted service. Principle and Provisions of Law in Support the Plaintiff's Position:355 [24]. As per Order 1A of the ROC 2012, the Court should prioritise the overriding interest of justice over technical non-compliance. The Plaintiff's application embodies this spirit. While there might be technical procedural challenges, the primary pursuit of justice 360 mandates that the Plaintiff's proactive efforts not be negated by these minor misgiving. S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [25]. Flexibility in Time Extensions: Order 3 rule 5 of the ROC 2012 provides the Court with discretion to extend time periods, even post 365 the expiration of the original period. This provision explicitly recognizes the fact that practical scenarios might necessitate such extensions, and the Plaintiff's situation is a case in point. [26]. Writ Extension Principles, by Order 6 Rule 7 of the ROC 2012370 states the framework for writ extensions. The Plaintiff's application respects this framework and meets the conditions stipulated therein. Moreover, the Plaintiff's application came within the time frame, a fact underscored by the cited case of Ever Rich Enterprise v Ten Mei Theng [2019] 1 MLRH 194, which accentuates the principle of 375 viewing writ validity in intervals. [27]. Inherent Powers of the Court, Order 92 Rule 4 ROC 2012 acknowledges the Court's inherent powers to ensure justice is served and prevents the abuse of legal processes. The Plaintiff's 380 situation is an opportunity for the Court to exercise this power, ensuring that justice is not overshadowed by rigid procedural technicalities. [28]. In PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE by Jeffery Pinsler 2013, I 385 quote: Ltd, Lord Brandon identified three situations which need to be distinguished: made at a time when the writ is still valid and before the 390 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 relevant period of limitation has expired. Category (2) cases are where the application for extension is made at a time when the writ is still valid but the relevant period of limitation has expired. Category (3) cases are where the application for extension is made at a time when the writ has ceased to be 395 val Lord Brandon concluded that different considerations apply in these scenarios: In both category (1) cases and category (2) cases, it is still possible for the plaintiff (subject to any difficulties of service which there may be) to serve the writ before its validity 400 expires, and, if he does so, the defendant will not be able to rely on a defence of limitation. In category (1) cases, but not category (2) cases, it is also possible for the plaintiff before the original writ ceases to be valid, to issue a fresh writ. In category (1) and (2) cases, the defendant who has not been served does not have an 405 accrued right of limitation at the time when the application for extension is made. However, in category (3) cases, it is not possible for the plaintiff to serve the writ effectively unless its validity is first retrospectively extended. Accordingly (in the category (3) situation), at the time when the application for 410 extension is made, a defendant on whom the writ has not been served has an accrued right of limitation. In determining whether the plaintiff has made a sufficient case to justify renewal, the court must attach the appropriate importance to these considerations. The priorities in each case are determined by the circumstances 415 so that, for example, the defendant's potential loss of a limitation defence might be regarded as less compelling if the plaintiff's inaction was induced by the defendant's consent to the extension of the writ. The court must decide for itself the cumulative effect of all the factors which support or are against renewal." 420 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [29]. To further bolster this point, I refer to Arab-Malaysian Credit Bhd v Tan Seang Meng [1995] 1 MLJ 525, where the facts is somewhat similar to the present case. In Arab-Malaysian Credit Bhd (supra), the plaintiff initially faced difficulties in effecting personal service on 425 the defendant, leading to an order for substituted service granted. The substituted service was carried out and judgment in default was entered against the defendant. The defendant was unaware of these proceedings until later when bankruptcy proceedings were initiated based on the default judgment. The defendant then took 430 steps to set aside the default judgment, and this application was filed approximately six years and three months after the Default Judgment was entered. The Judge set aside the default judgment as he deemed flaws in the order for substituted service. The 435 the end of 12 calendar months from its issue. To overcome this, the plaintiff made eight separate ex-parte applications for 12-month extensions, effectively reviving the expired writ. The defendant, upon being served with the extended writ, entered a conditional appearance and subsequently appealed against the orders 440 extending the writ. Initially, the senior assistant registrar denied the defendant's request. However, on appeal, the judge overturned the extensions, ruling that the court lacked the authority to grant such extensions. The plaintiff then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. His Lordship Justice Gopal Sri Ram, was of the view that a 445 court possesses the clear authority to extend the validity of a writ even after it has expired. Although, the decision to exercise this jurisdiction in a specific instance is left to the discretion of the court that is considering a request for such an extension. This implies that while the legal capability exists, its application depends on the 450 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 unique circumstances and considerations of each individual case. This is what Justice Gopal Sri Ram, JCA said: bservations of Lord Brandon do nothing more than to highlight the salient aspects of the Rule which are plainly visible to one's intellect upon a reading of it and upon a comparison of it with 455 its precursor. What comes through when a reading of the speech as a whole is undertaken is that a court has undoubted jurisdiction to extend a writ even after its expiry. Whether that jurisdiction ought to be invoked in a given case is a matter within the discretion of the court hearing an application to extend: Waddon v Whitecroft 460 Scovill Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 996; [1988] 1 WLR 309 [30]. His Lordship Gopal Sri Ram, in the same case of Arab-Malaysian Credit Bhd (supra), went further to state on the exercise of discretion: 465 order or to grant relief and quite a different thing to say that a particular order or relief will not, in accordance with settled principles, be granted. A refusal in such circumstances is in fact an exercise of jurisdiction and not a denial of it. This important 470 distinction of principle is well brought out by the following passage in the advice of the Privy Council delivered by Lord Diplock in Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong [1970] AC 1136; [1970] 2 WLR 1264 which was applied by our Federal Court in Dato Menteri Othman bin Baginda & Anor v Dato Ombi Syed 475 Alwi bin Syed Idrus [1981] 1 MLJ 29 : When considering an action claiming relief in the form of discretionary remedies only it is thus important to distinguish S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 between the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action at all, 480 ie to embark upon the inquiry whether facts exist which would entitle the court to grant the relief claimed, and a settled practice of the court to exercise its discretion by withholding the relief if the facts found to exist disclose a particular kind of factual situation. The application of a discretion to refuse relief even 485 though this may be pursuant to a settled practice is an exercise of jurisdiction, not a denial of it. Although those words were spoken in the context of declaratory relief, they are of universal application and are analogously relevant to the present case where a rule of court has expressly 490 conferred a wide discretion on the court. [31]. The conclusion reached by His Lordship is also worth considering: Having addressed our minds to the plain words of O 6 r 7, and the 495 decided cases in which it has been considered, we are satisfied that the High Court had ample jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff in the instant case the several extensions sought by it of its writ. Quite apart from O 6 r 7, there is wide power under O 3 r 5 conferred upon the High Court to extend time. Even the restriction 500 of granting more than one extension of 12 months expressed in O 6 r 7 may, in appropriate cases, be overcome by having resort to O 92 r 4 (absent in the English RSC) which is a jurisdictional provision. (See Pacific Centre Sdn Bhd v United Engineers (M) Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 143.) 505 Further, in a recent and yet unreported judgment of this court, reference has been made to the important principle that a rule of court should not be construed so as to produce unfairness or a manifest injustice. (See Sim Seoh Beng & Anor v Koperasi Tunas S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Muda Sungai Ara Bhd, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No P-02-7-94 510 [since reported in [1995] 1 MLJ 292 ].) Surely, this principle may be invoked to overcome any technical obstacles in the way of achieving substantial justice in a case where a pedantic approach 515 [32]. In our present case, the learned session court, after reviewing the case, did not refuse an extension based on the exercise of his discretion. Instead, he based his refusal on O 6 r 7(2A) of the ROC 2012, holding that the Plaintiff failed to meet the three necessary requirements for the court to grant a renewal of the writ. 520 Conclusion: [33]. represents a sincere pursuit of justice, supported by their continuous proactive actions. The Plaintiff cannot be faulted in any way for the 'delay' between the period when 525 judgment in default was entered and the time it was set aside. By interpreting the Rules of Court 2012 in their true spirit, which is to step in ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld. I am of 530 opinion that both parties should be given an opportunity to ventilate the merits of each of their respective cases. [34]. Enclosure 54 with no order as to costs. 535 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Postscript [35]. After delivering my decision in this case on October 20, 2023, the Defendant's counsel commendably brought the Federal Court's decision in FIMBank Plc v The Owners and/or Demise Charterer 540 to my attention. The Federal Court delivered this decision on October 16, 2023, just four days before my decision in this case. The Federal Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Court of Appeal's decision in the same case. The Defendant had relied on the Court of Appeal's 545 decision in FIMBank Plc (supra) in the current case before me. It must be noted that neither the court nor the counsel were aware of the Federal Court's decision in FIMBank Plc (supra) when the decision in the present case was delivered. 550 [36]. Although the Federal Court's decision was in the context of admiralty claims, in my view, the rationale behind Order 6 Rule 7(2) of ROC 2012 applies to all cases where it serves a specific purpose in ensuring due diligence among litigants, particularly focusing on the service of a writ. It is a measure against indolence in litigation, 555 ensuring that parties actively pursue their legal rights and obligations. [37]. The Federal Court is of the view that interpreting O 6 r 7(2) of the ROC 2012 as imposing an absolute limit on the number of renewals560 diverges from the rule's intended purpose. The court finds that such a rigid interpretation could inadvertently impair the administration of justice rather than facilitate it. It risks penalizing diligent litigants S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 who, despite their efforts, are unable to serve the writ due to factors beyond their control. 565 [38]. The Federal Court acknowledges the role of the court's inherent to situations where there is a gap or lacuna in the ROC. Even if O 6 r 7(2) of the ROC 2012 expressly limits the number of times a writ570 can be extended, the court should retain the inherent power to go beyond this limit to prevent injustice. This approach ensures that a litigant's statutory right to pursue their claim is not unjustly defeated by a strict and pedantic reading of O 6 r 7(2) of the ROC 2012. 575 [39]. I conclude that the Federal Court's decision in FIMBank Plc (supra) reinforces this court's decision regarding Enclosure 54 in the present case. 580 Date: 14 December 2023 Moses Susayan 585 MOSES SUSAYAN Judicial Commissioner High Court in Malaya at Ipoh, Perak 590 S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 For Plaintiff: Nur Diana binti Ramlee Advocates and Solicitors 595 Messrs Bh Koh, Soong, Zarin & Partners Ipoh, Perak For Defendant: 600 Yuvaraj a/l Sugapthy Advocates and Solicitors Messrs Sugapthy & Partners Kuala Lumpur 605 (Notice: This Grounds of Decision is subject to official editorial revision) Headnotes Civil Procedure Writ of Summons Extension of Writ The Plaintiff 610 applied for an extension after the writ's validity period. Whether the court is in a position to exercise its discretionary power to extend the writ under Rules of Court 2012, O 6 r 7(2). Whether the plaintiff can be blamed when the Judgment in Default and the order for substituted service are set aside after the writ's validity period. Whether, should the 615 court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under O 92 r 4 of the ROC in such cases Whether the court should retain the inherent power to extend the writ beyond the limit expressly set by O 6 r 7(2) to prevent injustice. S/N U6w8gPSixUm1eEfp8bgwWw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-59-01/2022

PERAYU 1. ) MOHD ZAI BIN MUSTAFA 2. ) Zainal Abidin Bin Borhan (Bagi Pihak Gabungan Persatuan Penulis Nasional Malaysia (Gapena)) (Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil) RESPONDEN 1. ) MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Establishment of vernacular schools in Malaysia; whether the provisions of the Education Act 1996 providing for the establishment of such schools contravene article 152 of the Federal Constitution

15/12/2023

YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin AdnanKorumYA Datuk Supang LianYA Dato' Gunalan A/L MuniandyYA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c231249b-cd7b-4511-b41c-654c38bc061b&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - Vernacular School Challenge Grounds of Judgment DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) 1 RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(IM)(NCVC)-682-11/2021 ANTARA MOHD ZAI BIN MUSTAFA Atas kapasiti sebagai Setiausaha, dan bagi pihak Pertubuhan Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia, yang dikenali dengan takrif nama Majlis Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia (MAPPIM) …PERAYU DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 4. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) 5. HENG HONG CHAI Bagi pihak Majlis Bahasa Cina Malaysia 6. PERMALU RAMAYAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia 15/12/2023 11:50:25 W-01(IM)(NCvC)-59-01/2022 Kand. 25 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 2 7. KUMARAN MARIMUTHU Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Bekas Pelajar Sekolah Tamil Malaysia (PERTAMA) (Didengar Bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(IM)(NCVC)-59-01/2022 ANTARA 1. MOHD ZAI BIN MUSTAFA Atas kapasiti sebagai Setiausaha, dan bagi pihak Pertubuhan Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia, yang dikenali dengan takrif nama Majlis Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia (MAPPIM) …PERAYU-PERAYU 2. ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN BORHAN Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Penulis Nasional Malaysia (GAPENA) DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 3 (Didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(IM)(NCVC)-60-01/2022 ANTARA 1. MOHD ZAI BIN MUSTAFA Atas kapasiti sebagai Setiausaha, dan bagi pihak Pertubuhan Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia, yang dikenali dengan takrif nama Majlis Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia (MAPPIM) …PERAYU-PERAYU 2. ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN BORHAN Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Penulis Nasional Malaysia (GAPENA) DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. DOMINIC LAU HOE CHAI Bagi pihak Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia 4. M ASOJAN MUNIYANDY Bagi pihak The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) 5. DATUK CHONG SIN VOON Bagi pihak Parti Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 4 6. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 7. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) 8. SEKOLAH MENENGAH PERSENDIRIAN CHONG HWA KUALA LUMPUR 9. JERAMAL @ GANESAN MUTHU Bagi pihak Persatuan Thamizar Malaysia 10. BABU RAJ RAJA GOPAL Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamilar Thirunal Perak 11. KANIAPPAN KANNAIAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Gabungan Kebajikan Guru-Guru Bersara Sekolah Tamil Malaysia 12. HENG HONG CHAI Bagi pihak Majlis Bahasa Cina Malaysia 13. PERMALU RAMAYAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 5 14. KUMARAN MARIMUTHU Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Bekas Pelajar Sekolah Tamil Malaysia (PERTAMA) (Didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(IM)(NCVC)-61-01/2022 ANTARA 1. MOHD ZAI BIN MUSTAFA Atas kapasiti sebagai Setiausaha, dan bagi pihak Pertubuhan Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia, yang dikenali dengan takrif nama Majlis Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia (MAPPIM) …PERAYU-PERAYU 2. ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN BORHAN Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Penulis Nasional Malaysia (GAPENA) DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. DOMINIC LAU HOE CHAI Bagi pihak Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia 4. M ASOJAN MUNIYANDY Bagi pihak The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 6 5. DATUK CHONG SIN VOON Bagi pihak Parti Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) 6. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 7. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) 8. SEKOLAH MENENGAH PERSENDIRIAN CHONG HWA KUALA LUMPUR 9. JERAMAL @ GANESAN MUTHU Bagi pihak Persatuan Thamizar Malaysia 10. BABU RAJ RAJA GOPAL Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamilar Thirunal Perak 11. KANIAPPAN KANNAIAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Gabungan Kebajikan Guru-Guru Bersara Sekolah Tamil Malaysia S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 7 12. HENG HONG CHAI Bagi pihak Majlis Bahasa Cina Malaysia 13. PERMALU RAMAYAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia 14. KUMARAN MARIMUTHU Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Bekas Pelajar Sekolah Tamil Malaysia (PERTAMA) (Didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(IM)(NCVC)-64-01/2022 ANTARA AMINUDDIN BIN YAHAYA Mengambil tindakan atas kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi, dan bagi pihak, Pertubuhan Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) …PERAYU DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 8 4. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 5. DATUK CHONG SIN VOON Bagi pihak Parti Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) (Didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(IM)(NCVC)-65-01/2022 ANTARA AMINUDDIN BIN YAHAYA Mengambil tindakan atas kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi, dan bagi pihak, Pertubuhan Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) …PERAYU DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 9 4. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 5. DATUK CHONG SIN VOON Bagi pihak Parti Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) (Didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: D-01(NCVC)(A)-402-06/2022 ANTARA MOHD AZIZEE BIN HASAN Atas kapasiti sebagai Presiden, dan bagi pihak, Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia (i-Guru) …PERAYU DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. DATUK CHONG SIN VOON Bagi pihak Parti Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) 4. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 10 5. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 6. HENG HONG CHAI Bagi pihak Majlis Bahasa Cina Malaysia 7. PERMALU RAMAYAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia 8. KUMARAN MARIMUTHU Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Bekas Pelajar Sekolah Tamil Malaysia (PERTAMA) (Didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: D-01(NCVC)(A)-458-06/2022 ANTARA 1. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) …PERAYU-PERAYU 2. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 11 DAN MOHD AZIZEE BIN HASAN Atas kapasiti sebagai Presiden, dan bagi pihak, Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia (i-Guru) …RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN NO: WA-21NCVC-84-12/2019 ANTARA 1. MOHD ALIF ANAS BIN MD NOOR Atas kapasiti sebagai Presiden, dan bagi pihak, Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF 2. MOHD ZAI BIN MUSTAFA Atas kapasiti sebagai Setiausaha, dan bagi pihak Pertubuhan Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia, yang dikenali dengan takrif nama Majlis Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia (MAPPIM) 3. ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN BORHAN Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Penulis Nasional Malaysia (GAPENA) DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 12 3. DOMINIC LAU HOE CHAI Bagi pihak Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia 4. M ASOJAN MUNIYANDY Bagi pihak The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) 5. DATUK CHONG SIN VOON Bagi pihak Parti Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) 6. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 7. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) 8. SEKOLAH MENENGAH PERSENDIRIAN CHONG HWA KUALA LUMPUR 9. JERAMAL @ GANESAN MUTHU Bagi pihak Persatuan Thamizhar Malaysia 10. BABU RAJ RAJA GOPAL Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamilar Thirunal Perak S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 13 11. KANIAPPAN KANNAIAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Gabungan Kebajikan Guru-Guru Bersara Sekolah Tamil Malaysia 12. PARTI BUMIPUTERA PERKASA MALAYSIA (PUTRA) 13. HENG HONG CHAI Bagi pihak Majlis Bahasa Cina Malaysia 14. PERMALU RAMAYAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia 15. KUMARAN MARIMUTHU Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Bekas Pelajar Sekolah Tamil Malaysia (PERTAMA) (Didengar bersama) DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN NO: WA-21NCVC-2-01/2020 ANTARA AMINUDDIN BIN YAHYA Mengambil tindakan atas kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi, dan bagi pihak, Pertubuhan Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 14 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 3. PARTI BUMIPUTERA PERKASA MALAYSIA 4. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) 5. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 6. DATUK CHONG SIN VOON Bagi pihak Parti Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM SAMAN PEMULA NO: DA-24NCVC-66-02/2020 ANTARA MOHD AZIZEE BIN HASAN Atas kapasiti sebagai Presiden, dan bagi pihak, Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia (i-Guru) …PLAINTIF DAN 1. MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 15 3. DATUK CHONG SIN VOON Bagi pihak Parti Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) 4. TAN TAI KIM Bagi pihak Persekutuan Persatuan-Persatuan Lembaga Pengurus Sekolah Cina Malaysia (DONG ZONG) 5. ONG KOW EE @ ONG CHIOW CHUE Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Guru-Guru Sekolah Cina Malaysia (JIAO ZONG) 6. HENG HONG CHAI Bagi pihak Majlis Bahasa Cina Malaysia 7. PERMALU RAMAYAH Bagi pihak Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia 8. KUMARAN MARIMUTHU Bagi pihak Gabungan Persatuan Bekas Pelajar Sekolah Tamil Malaysia (PERTAMA) S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 16 CORAM SUPANG LIAN JCA M GUNALAN JCA AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN JCA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT INTRODUCTION [1] The appeals in the present case related to challenges on the legality and constitutionality of the vernacular schools system in Malaysia. There were eight 5 appeals, which emanated from three suits filed at the High Court: two were commenced as writ actions in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur (Suit Nos. WA- 21NCVC-84-12/2019 and WA-21NCVC-2-01/2020), while the third case was an originating summons action commenced in the High Court at Kota Bharu (OS No. DA-24NCVC-66-02/2020). 10 The parties [2] The plaintiffs at first instance were the office bearers of various non- governmental organisations: Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS), Pertubuhan Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia (MAPPIM), Gabungan Persatuan Penulis Nasional Malaysia (GAPENA), Pertubuhan Ikatan Muslimin 15 Malaysia (ISMA) and Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia. [3] In all the cases, the Minister of Education and the government of Malaysia were named as defendants. Several other parties representing various interests were subsequently included as co-defendants. S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 17 The two writ actions in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur [4] In the writ action WA-21NCVC-84-12/2019 (referred to here as “Suit 84”), the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs: (a) a declaration that sections 2, 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996 (which relate to the establishment and maintenance of vernacular or 5 national-type schools where the medium of instruction is either Tamil or Chinese1) were inconsistent with article 152(1) of the Federal Constitution (which among others established Malay as the national language) and that accordingly these provisions were null and void to the extent of such inconsistency; 10 (b) a declaration that the existence of such national-type schools was in contravention of certain provisions in the Federal Constitution providing for the fundamental liberties of individuals, specifically article 5 (the right to life and liberty), article 8 (the right to equality before the law), article 10 (the right of freedom of speech and 15 expression), article 11 (the right to religion) and article 12 (the right of equal access to education); and (c) an order directing the Minister of Education and the government to bring national-type schools into compliance with article 152(1) within a period of 6 years of judgment. 20 [5] Suit 84 was heard together by the High Court at Kuala Lumpur with the writ action WA-21NCVC-2-01/2020 (“Suit 2”). The plaintiff in Suit 2 sought 1 We are aware that there is, strictly speaking, no single spoken Chinese language, but a number of different dialects based upon a uniform script. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this judgment, we have adopted the nomenclature employed in legislation and in the Federal Constitution S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 18 similar reliefs as the plaintiffs in Suit 84. In Suit 2, the plaintiff sought for declarations that: (a) sections 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996 were in contravention of article 152 of the Federal Constitution; and (b) such provisions of the Education Act 1996, in so far as they related to 5 national-type schools, were void. [6] Some of the defendants in Suit 2 and Suit 84 made applications for the cases to be disposed pursuant to the procedures provided for under order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012. The judge hearing the application, Mohd Nazlan Ghazali J (as his lordship then was), determined that both suits were suitable for 10 disposal pursuant to order 14A. The second plaintiff in Suit 84 appealed to this court against this determination, which appeal was recorded as Appeal No. 682 before us. [7] Having determined that the suits were suitable for disposal under the procedure provided for under order 14A and that the suits constituted an 15 inconsistency challenge (and not an incompetency challenge) and that accordingly the High Court was seised with the requisite jurisdiction to hear the suits, Nazlan J thereafter proceeded to address the substantive questions of law and construction that were posed to the High Court. On the merits of the cases, both Suits 2 and 84 were dismissed. 20 [8] The appeals recorded as Appeal Nos. 59, 60, 61, 64 and 65 were the appeals by the plaintiffs in Suits 2 and 84 against the determination of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur on the substantive questions of law and construction posed to the court in the order 14A application. S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 19 The Kota Bharu originating summons [9] The plaintiff at the High Court at Kota Bharu in the originating summons No. DA-24NCVC-66-02/2020 (“OS 66”) sought (among others) for the court to declare that sections 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996 are inconsistent with article 152 of the Federal Constitution and that accordingly they are null and void 5 to the extent of such inconsistency. [10] The learned judicial commissioner at the High Court at Kota Bharu dismissed OS 66. The plaintiff in that case appealed against this decision, which appeal was recorded before us as Appeal No. 402. [11] In coming to this decision, the judicial commissioner made the finding that 10 national-type schools were “public authorities” for the purposes of article 150(6) and within the meaning of article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution. The fourth and fifth defendants in OS 66 appealed against this finding. This appeal was recorded as Appeal No. 458. [12] These grounds constitute the judgment of the court. 15 SUMMARY OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT [13] We summarise our findings as follows: (a) in relation to Appeal No. 682 on the suitability of the order 14A procedure, we dismissed the appeal for the following reasons: (i) it was plain to us that the first two questions posed, which related 20 to the issue of locus standi of the plaintiffs and the justiciability of the matters in dispute, were questions of law that were S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 20 entirely capable of being determined based entirely upon the undisputed and agreed facts; (ii) in connection with the contention of the plaintiff in Suit 84 that viva voce testimony must be received to show the effects of the government’s education policy, we were of the view that the 5 effects of government policy are simply irrelevant to the exercise of legislative and constitutional construction; (iii) on the question of whether it will be necessary to lead oral testimonies of witnesses in order to introduce the various historical documents providing context to the provisions of the 10 Federal Constitution, we were of the view that these documents already form part of the historical record of the nation and were admissible on this basis; (b) in our judgment, based on a proper construction of the terms of articles 152(6) and 160(2), vernacular or national-type schools are not 15 public authorities, and hence the use of Tamil or Chinese in these schools as a medium of instruction would not be prohibited or contrary to the Constitution. Hence the appeal in Appeal No. 458 was allowed; (c) where a language had been used in schools as a medium of instruction 20 immediately prior to Merdeka, the proviso in article 152(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution confers the right on the government to preserve the use of the language and to take steps to sustain its continued use, and hence the relevant provisions of the Education Act 1996 cannot be said to be unconstitutional; 25 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 21 (d) had the framers of the Constitution intended for schools employing a language other than Malay or English as a medium of instruction to be considered unlawful and unconstitutional, such schools would have been shut down, abolished or converted upon the adoption of the Federal Constitution. That this was not done points to a contrary 5 intention; (e) the argument that vernacular schools became unconstitutional with the amendment to article 152(6) in 1971 cannot be accepted, because there is nothing in the record of parliamentary proceedings that suggests that parliament had intended for the amendment to article 10 152(6) to strike at the legality or constitutionality of vernacular schools; (f) if the use of Tamil and Chinese in such schools are subject to the protection accorded under the article 152(1)(b), it cannot be that these constitutionally-protected rights militate against the 15 fundamental liberties contained in Part II of the Federal Constitution; (g) in any event, enrolment in national-type schools is entirely voluntary. Thus, even if their existence impinge upon the fundamental liberties of the attendees (which is doubted), that there is a freely exercisable choice would vitiate any notion of such impingement; and 20 (h) as a consequence of our findings summarised at paragraphs (b) to (g) ante, the appeals in Appeal Nos. 59, 60, 61, 64, 65 and 402 were dismissed. S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 22 [14] The analyses underlying these findings are explained in the following paragraphs. The summary above should be read as being subject to what follows. THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ORDER 14A APPLICATION [15] It was advanced for the appellant in Appeal No. 682, En Mohd Zai bin 5 Mustafa, who represented MAPPIM, that the writ action in Suit 84 was not an appropriate case for determination under the procedure provided for in order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012. MAPPIM, together with GPMS and GAPENA were the de facto plaintiffs in Suit 84, and they resisted the applications by the first, second, sixth, seventh and thirteenth defendants for Suit 84 to be disposed by 10 way of the determination of questions of law. [16] According to counsel for MAPPIM, the issues in dispute involved a mixed question of law and fact, which would require the need for oral testimonies of witnesses. [17] The submissions advanced for the plaintiffs in the writ action did not find 15 favour with the High Court, and the court determined that the matters in dispute were suitable for determination by way of an application under order 14A, and that this determination would result in the disposal of the entire dispute between the parties. MAPPIM, through En Zai, appealed against this decision. The questions posed to the High Court 20 [18] The four questions posed to the High Court in the order 14A application may be paraphrased into the following: (a) whether the plaintiffs were sufficiently seised with locus standi to commence the writ action; S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 23 (b) whether the matters in contention were justiciable before the courts; (c) whether sections 2, 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996 are inconsistent with article 152(1) of the Federal Constitution; and (d) whether the establishment and existence of Chinese and Tamil national-type schools were inconsistent with articles 5, 8, 10, 11 and 5 12 of the Federal Constitution. The applicable principles [19] The applicable principles were not in material dispute between the parties, and thus it suffices that we summarise them here. [20] Order 14A rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides as follows: 10 Disposal of Case on Point of Law (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; 15 and (b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein. [21] The existence of a question of law or construction to be determined by the court must be clearly discernible from the pleadings of the parties. The 20 question of law or construction must be also one that is capable of being determined without a full trial of the action, and hence the procedure in order 14A may not be appropriate where there are conflicting allegations of fact that affect the determination of the questions of law or construction, or where there are facts in issue that are interwoven with the legal issues raised. Where there 25 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 24 exist disputes of fact on the affidavits, the court may nonetheless proceed to exercise its discretion to determine whether the undisputed or agreed facts provide a sufficient basis to determine the question of law or construction: see Bato’ Bagi v Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak [2011] 6 MLJ 297. A court should not decline to consider an application under order 14A simply on the basis that the 5 question of law or issue of construction is or appears to be complicated. (See Petroliam Nasional Berhad v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu [2003] 5 AMR 696, [2003] 4 CLJ 337, [2004] 1 MLJ 8, [2003] 1 MLRA 582.) The determination of the application under order 14A need not necessarily dispose of the entire case; it suffices if the answer arrived at by the court disposes of “any claim or issue” in 10 the action (supra, and Wang Bao’ An v MAS Berhad [2018] 11 MLJ 585, [2018] 7 CLJ 371). The question of law or construction which the court is to determine must be set out in clear and precise terms (Lekaz Constructions v KOP Petroleum [2003] 6 AMR 74, [2003] 4 CLJ 377). Analysis 15 [22] It was plain to us that the first two questions posed—relating to the locus standi of the plaintiffs and the justiciability of the matters in dispute—were questions of law that were capable of being determined based entirely upon the undisputed and agreed facts. [23] In relation to the remaining two questions posed, the plaintiffs’ position 20 was that these questions—which related to the substantive challenge on the legality of the national-type schools and the constitutionality of the laws providing for their existence—can only be determined at a full trial of the action, because of the following reasons: S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 25 (a) the plaintiffs made the factual contention that the existence and maintenance of the national-type schools draw funding away from other schools under the authority of the Ministry of Education, such as tahfiz schools, which have difficulty in obtaining financial allocation from the government. Whether this factual contention is made out 5 can only be determined at a trial of the action; (b) witnesses will need to be called to put before the court the various reports on the education system such as the Barnes Report of 1951, the 1951 Fenn-Wu Report, the Razak Report of 1956, the Rahman Talib Report of 1960, the National Education Policy of 1979 as well as the 10 Education Act 1996; and (c) the plaintiffs pleaded various news reports and studies, the sum effect of which was intended to show—and in this regard we paraphrase— that the existence of national-type schools has led to a poor grasp of the Malay language within certain parts of society, and which was not 15 conducive to integration and unity of Malaysians as a whole. These news reports and studies—according to the plaintiffs—can only be adduced at a trial of the action, to prove the contention that the existence of the national-type schools contravened articles 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution (which, as explained, relate to the 20 fundamental liberties of individuals). [24] These questions—according to the plaintiffs—cannot be decided by the court in vacuo, without a determination of the material facts. Hence, it was argued that the order 14A procedure was inappropriate in the circumstances. S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 26 [25] The High Court disagreed with the contentions of the plaintiff2. We saw no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the learned High Court judge. [26] In our considered view, the evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiffs regarding the appropriate allocation of funding to educational institutions, and the articles and news items on the contended deficiencies of 5 the education system were not germane to the exercise of construing the relevant provisions of the Education Act 1996 and of the Federal Constitution. [27] The effects of the education policy are matters relating to the stated policies of government and the manner in which those policies are implemented. Even if those policies run contrary to whatever may be perceived 10 as a desirable outcome—for example if it is argued that the existence of the national-type schools has contributed to the increased polarisation of society— it would be quite beyond the pale for the courts to intervene. As correctly pointed out by Nazlan J at the High Court, it is not the role of the courts to review the policies of government. The policy and intent of parliament are simply aids 15 to the court in interpreting legislation, and in the context of the present case, to determine whether the legislation in question is inconsistent with the terms of the Federal Constitution, as alleged by the plaintiffs. By contrast, the effects of government policy—which was the evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiffs through viva voce testimony—are simply irrelevant to the exercise of 20 legislative and constitutional construction. [28] On the question of whether it will be necessary to lead oral testimonies of witnesses in order to introduce the various historical documents providing context to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, we can do no better than 2 The decision of the High Court relating to the suitability of the order 14A procedure is reported as Mohd Alif Anas v Menteri Pendidikan Malaysia [2022] 6 CLJ 431 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 27 to reproduce the following passage from the judgment of Nazlan J in the court below: [42] I repeat that there is no necessity to call witnesses just to tender the several historical documents, such as the Barnes Report 1951, the Fenn-Wu Report 1951, the Razak Report 1956 and the Rahman Talib Report 1960 at the trial. These documents 5 are available at the National Archives. Under s. 57(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1950, the court is entitled to take judicial notice "of all laws or regulations having the force in law now or heretofore in force or hereafter to be in force in Malaysia or any part thereof". Under s. 57(2), on all matters of public history and literature, the court "may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference". Further, under s. 10 57(3), if the court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until the person produces any such book or document as it considers necessary to enable it to do so. [29] The documents referred to form part of the historical record of the nation and are admissible on this basis, and no further purpose would be served by 15 having them tendered into evidence by witnesses who most certainly would not be the makers of the documents themselves. [30] For the reasons explained in the foregoing paragraphs, the appeal in Appeal No. 682 was dismissed. [31] In the following paragraphs, we address the substantive issues raised 20 regarding first, the consistency or otherwise of sections 2, 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996 with article 152(1) of the Federal Constitution, and second, whether the establishment and existence of the national-type schools infringe articles 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Constitution. WHETHER SECTIONS 2, 17 AND 28 OF THE EDUCATION ACT 1996 ARE 25 INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 152 [32] The effect of article 152 of the Federal Constitution—and this appears to be common ground between the parties—is that only Malay, as the national language, may be used for official purposes. Where the parties differ is whether S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 28 the use of languages other than Malay as a medium of instruction in schools is an “official purpose”. [33] Based on a proper construction of the terms of articles 152(6) and 160(2), we are of the view that the vernacular or national-type schools are not public authorities, and hence the use of Tamil or Chinese in these schools as a medium 5 of instruction would not be prohibited or contrary to the Federal Constitution, because such use should not properly be considered to be use for an official purpose within the meaning of article 152(6) of the Constitution. The relevant provisions of the Education Act 1996 [34] The provisions of the Education Act 1996 under challenge were sections 10 2, 17 and 28. Section 17 is the principal provision providing for Malay, being the national language, as the medium of instruction in all educational institutions. As a specific and express exception, national-type schools established under section 28 are exempt from the requirement to conduct teaching in Malay. Section 17 provides as follows: 15 Section 17. National language as the main medium of instruction. (1) The national language shall be the main medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the National Education System except a national-type school established under section 28 or any other educational institution exempted by the Minister from this subsection. 20 (2) Where the main medium of instruction in an educational institution is other than the national language, the national language shall be taught as a compulsory subject in the educational institution. [35] Section 28 provides for the power of the Minister of Education to establish and maintain national-type schools: 25 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 29 Section 28. Establishment and maintenance of national and national-type schools. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Minister may establish national schools and national-type schools and shall maintain such schools. [36] A national-type school—commonly referred to as a vernacular school—is defined in section 2 of the Education Act 1996 to mean a primary school where 5 the main medium of instruction is either Chinese or Tamil. The definition reads as follows: “national-type school” means a government or government-aided primary school— (a) providing primary education appropriate for pupils from the age of six years; (b) using the Chinese or Tamil language as the main medium of instruction; and 10 (c) in which the national and English languages are compulsory subjects of instruction; Article 152 [37] Article 152(1) of the Federal Constitution provides for the Malay language as the national language of Malaysia. It reads as follows: 15 National language 152. (1) The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in such script as Parliament may by law provide: Provided that— (a) no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using (otherwise than for 20 official purposes), or from teaching or learning, any other language; and (b) nothing in this Clause shall prejudice the right of the Federal Government or of any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the Federation. [38] The proviso in subparagraph (a) permits the use of languages other than 25 Malay except where the use is for an official purpose. Sub-article (6) defines the expression “official purpose”. It reads as follows: S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 30 (6) In this Article, “official purpose” means any purpose of the Government, whether Federal or State, and includes any purpose of a public authority. [39] The key question is thus whether the use of a language as a medium of instruction in schools comes within the ambit of “official purpose”. Is a school 5 considered to be part of “Government”, and is it a “public authority” within the meaning of sub-article (6)? [40] The expression “public authority” is further defined in article 160(2) in the following terms: “public authority” means the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Ruler or Yang di-Pertua 10 Negeri of a State, the Federal Government, the Government of a State, a local authority, a statutory authority exercising powers vested in it by federal or State law, any court or tribunal other than the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and High Courts, or any officer or authority appointed by or acting on behalf of any of those persons, courts, tribunals or authorities; 15 [41] Reliance was placed by the plaintiffs on the cases of Merdeka University v Government of Malaysia [1982] 2 MLJ 243 and Public Prosecutor v Mark Koding [1983] 1 MLJ 111 in support of the proposition that the use of a language as a medium of instruction in schools constituted use for an official purpose, and that accordingly article 152 permitted only the use of the Malay language in that 20 manner. [42] The plaintiff in Merdeka University was a company limited by guarantee incorporated for the purposes of establishing a university. It submitted a petition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 for an incorporation order. In the petition, it was explained that the 25 medium of instruction of the proposed university would be Chinese. The petition was rejected. S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 31 [43] The plaintiff then commenced a writ action, seeking (among others) to declare the rejection of its petition null and void. The suit was dismissed at first instance, and the plaintiff appealed to the Federal Court. [44] The Federal Court by a 4:1 majority concluded that, if the proposed university were permitted to be established, it would be a public authority, and 5 therefore the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction would constitute use for an official purpose, which was prohibited by the Federal Constitution. [45] In PP v Mark Koding, the accused was a member of the nation’s fifth parliament, having been elected as Barisan Nasional candidate for Kinabalu. He was charged under section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 for having uttered 10 words of a seditious tendency in a speech in parliament. Among the statements made were an exhortation to the members of the lower house to shut down vernacular schools. The High Court found the accused not guilty of sedition when he advocated for the closure of Tamil and Chinese schools. In coming to this finding, the court reasoned that article 152(1) provided for the right to teach or 15 learn Chinese or Tamil, but that this right did not extend to the right to teach or learn in Chinese or Tamil. [46] In our considered view, both these cases can be distinguished from the present appeals. PP v Mark Koding did not consider the question whether a national-type school could properly be considered a “public authority” for the 20 purposes of article 152(6) and within the meaning of the definition of that expression in article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution. [47] Merdeka University, on the other hand, dealt with a proposed university that was held to be a public authority. In our view, schools are not public authorities, for the reasons explained in the following paragraphs. 25 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 32 [48] The Federal Court in Merdeka University referred to several indicia that distinguished a university as a public authority: A university established under the 1971 Act even if private clearly has the requisite public element, as it is subject to some degree of public control in its affairs and involves a number of public appointments to office in its framework, acts in the public 5 interest and is eligible for grants-in-aid from public funds. Under section 3 of the 1971 Act the Minister of Education is responsible for the general direction of higher education and the administration of the Act. A university can receive grants-in-aid authorized by Parliament under section 11 and in this connection the Minister of Education has certain supervisory responsibilities. His Majesty and in effect the 10 defendant would be responsible for the establishment of the campus and for making an order for this purpose in accordance with the provisions of section 12 and land may be acquired for the purposes of a university under section 13. The Minister of Education has also certain functions in relation to student activities and discipline under sections 15A and 15D. 15 The Constitution of a university must contain provisions for all matters set out in the schedule to the Act (section 8) and these give wide powers to the administration of the university. The appointment of the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor is to be made by His Majesty on ministerial advice and after consultation with the Council of the university in the latter case, and of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor by the Minister of 20 Education. Appointments to the Council and Court of the university include those by His Majesty and the Rulers and Governors of the several States and the Council will also include designated Government officers. His Majesty has power to amend the Constitution of a university at any time (section 8(3)) and by order exempt, vary or add to any of the provisions of the schedule to the Act (section 26). 25 [49] By contrast, these characteristics do not feature in schools. Nazlan J in his judgment for Suits 2 and 843 explained the characteristics of schools at paragraphs 85 to 92: [85] In my judgment, based on the legislative scheme of the Education Act 1996, unlike the proposed Merdeka University or a university established under the 30 Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, a vernacular school or a national-type school under the Education Act 1996 does not sufficiently exhibit the requisite public element to be validly construed as a statutory authority. And neither can it be said that a vernacular school is a statutory authority which exercises the powers vested in it by the Education Act 1996. 35 3 Reported as Mohd Alif Anas bin Md Noor (in his capacity as President, and on behalf of Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS)) v Menteri Pendidikan Malaysia [2022] 12 MLJ 455 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 33 [86] Vernacular schools essentially provide primary-level education, and the powers and functions under the Education Act 1996 are largely exercised by the Minister of Education. [87] A vernacular or national-type school is only required to be registered with the Registrar General pursuant to Section 79 (1) and (2) of the Education Act 1996. In 5 turn the Registrar General may impose such terms and conditions as he deems fit when registering an educational institution such as a vernacular school as stated in Section 79 (3). The Registrar General is also empowered under Section 84 to refuse a registration of an educational institution on seven specified grounds, none of which concerns the use of Chinese and Tamil languages. The Registrar General may even 10 cancel the registration of a vernacular school on grounds specified under Section 87 (1) (a) to (f). [88] Unlike in the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, the Minister of Education does not have the responsibility to acquire land for vernacular school and there are no similar provisions to Sections 15A and 15D of the Universities and 15 University Colleges Act 1971 concerning student activities and discipline in the Education Act 1996. [89] A vernacular school does not acquire the status as a body corporate upon establishment like a university under Section 7 of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, and there is no provision for the establishment of a vernacular 20 school to be submitted to Parliament such as under Section 6 of Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 which mandates the order declaring the establishment of a university to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. [90] In addition, regard must also be had to the provisions of Article 12 (1) of the Federal Constitution on rights in respect of education. It reads: 25 12 Rights in respect of education (1) Without prejudice to the generality of Article 8, there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth— (a) in the administration of any educational institution maintained by a 30 public authority, and, in particular, the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees; or (b) in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether 35 within or outside the Federation)". [91] This constitutional provision, not discussed in Merdeka University, prohibits discrimination in the administration of an educational institution maintained by a public authority—which therefore clearly draws a distinction between an educational institution which admits pupils and students on the one hand and a 40 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 34 public authority which maintains and funds such educational institution on the other hand. [92] In other words, a vernacular school, which is an educational institution under the Education Act 1996 cannot at the same time be the public authority which maintains the school in the first place. In this context, given the wide definition of 5 public authority in Article 160 (2) which includes the Federal Government, there is reasonable basis to contend that the public authority for the vernacular schools is the Minister of Education. [50] We agree and fully endorse the analysis employed, and the conclusion arrived at, by Nazlan J. A school is neither a statutory authority nor a public 10 authority, and accordingly the use of a language other than Malay in national- type schools as a medium of instruction would not be for an “official purpose”, and would therefore be permissible by the proviso in article 152(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. [51] In OS 66 heard by the High Court at Kota Bharu, the learned judicial 15 commissioner hearing the originating summons came to the contrary opinion4. In the view of the Kota Bharu High Court, the establishment of schools was the statutory obligation of the Minister of Education, whose office is encompassed within the expression “a statutory authority exercising powers vested in it by federal or State law”. Schools bore the responsibility to implement educational 20 policies and the prescribed curriculum, which in the view of the High Court meant that schools were statutory authorities within the meaning of the Federal Constitution. [52] We were unable to agree with this conclusion. Even if schools were the instruments by which the national curriculum is implemented, this does not 25 mean schools were exercising powers conferred to them by written law, for it is 4 The decision of the High Court at Kota Bharu is reported as Mohd Azizee Hasan lwn Menteri Pendidikan Malaysia [2022] 8 CLJ 446, [2022] 11 MLJ 615 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 35 the Minister who exercises this power, as acknowledged by the judicial commissioner himself. [53] For this reason, we allowed the appeal in Appeal No. 458, which was the appeal by the representatives of Dong Zong and Jiao Zong against the determination by the High Court at Kota Bharu that vernacular schools were 5 “public authorities” for the purposes of article 152(6) of the Federal Constitution. [54] The High Court at Kuala Lumpur came to the further conclusion—correctly in our view—that the use of Tamil or Chinese in national-type schools as a medium of instruction is protected by the proviso in article 152(1)(b) of the 10 Federal Constitution. It will be recalled that this proviso reads as follows: Provided that— … (b) nothing in this Clause shall prejudice the right of the Federal Government or of any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the 15 language of any other community in the Federation. [55] In our considered judgment, this proviso has the effect of “grandfathering” the use of other languages at the time of the proclamation of Merdeka, due to the words “preserve and sustain”. Where it can be established that a language had been used immediately prior to Merdeka, nothing in article 20 152 should be read as limiting the right of government to preserve the use of the language and to take steps to sustain its continued use. [56] If it is accepted that the use of a language other than Malay as a medium of instruction in schools existed even before Merdeka, it follows that the government, by proviso (b), is possessed of the right to preserve and sustain 25 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 36 such use. This right overrides the proscription in proviso (a) providing that only the Malay language shall be the language used for official purposes, due to the opening words in proviso (b). [57] To this extent, we disagreed with the dicta of the High Court in PP v Mark Koding where the learned judge stated: 5 This strict interpretation is consistent with proviso (b) which guarantees the right of the Federal Government or any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the Federation. Thus, the preservation and sustenance of usage of language of any other community is guaranteed. So is the preservation and sustenance of study of any other community's 10 language, but again there is no justification in extending the guarantee to the preservation and sustenance of study in the language of any other community in the absence of specific words to that effect. [Original emphasis] [58] While the learned judge is correct that proviso (b) makes reference to 15 “study of the language” and not study in such language, the word use is, in our considered judgment, sufficiently broad to encompass the use of a language as a medium of instruction. There is nothing in proviso (b) that would justify the strictures imposed upon it by the High Court in PP v Mark Koding so as to exclude from the expression “use of a language” its use as a medium of 20 instruction. [59] It cannot seriously be argued that the framers of the Federal Constitution had intended for schools employing a language other than Malay or English as a medium of instruction to be unlawful and contrary to the terms of the Constitution, for if this were the case, such schools would have been shut down, 25 abolished or converted upon the adoption of the Constitution. As explained, it was not in material dispute that schools employing Tamil or Chinese as a S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 37 medium of instruction had existed even before the promulgation and adoption of the Federal Constitution. [60] If the existence of vernacular schools were not ultra vires the Constitution at its inception, then the only other argument that may conceivably be advanced is that such schools became unconstitutional with the amendment to article 5 152(6) in 1971. In our considered view, this argument is similarly untenable, because there was nothing in the record of parliamentary proceedings that suggested that parliament had intended for the amendment to article 152(6) to strike at the legality or constitutionality of vernacular schools. [61] In construing the terms of the Federal Constitution, in particular the scope 10 of article 152 and the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we have adopted a more generous and less rigid approach than that which would have otherwise been applied in construing ordinary legislation. We have also considered the history and background of vernacular schools and the various reports affecting the national education system both before and immediately after Merdeka. We 15 observe that the historical background has been more than capably dealt with by Nazlan J at the High Court at paragraphs 23 to 52 of his grounds of judgment. [62] In summary therefore, a contextual construction of the relevant provisions of the Federal Constitution does not support the contention of the plaintiffs that the provisions of the Education Act 1996 providing for the 20 establishment and maintenance of national-type schools employing Tamil or Chinese as a medium of instruction are inconsistent with article 152 of the Federal Constitution. S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 38 WHETHER THE ESTABLISHMENT AND EXISTENCE OF THE NATIONAL-TYPE SCHOOLS INFRINGE ARTICLES 5, 8, 10, 11 AND 12 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [63] The plaintiffs in Suit 84 sought a declaration that the existence of national- type schools was in contravention of certain provisions in the Federal 5 Constitution providing for the fundamental liberties of individuals, specifically articles 5 (the right to life and liberty), article 8 (the right to equality before the law), article 10 (the right of freedom of speech and expression), article 11 (the right to religion) and article 12 (the right of equal access to education). The issue underlying this prayer was posed as a question of law before the High Court at 10 Kuala Lumpur in the order 14A proceedings. [64] We have concluded that, not only are the establishment and maintenance of national-type schools not inconsistent with article 152(1), but also that the use of Tamil and Chinese in such schools are subject to the protection accorded under the article 152(1)(b). That being the case, we fail to see how it may 15 reasonably be argued that these constitutionally-protected rights militate against the fundamental liberties in Part II of the Federal Constitution. [65] There was a second fundamental challenge besetting the appellants. They had sought to advance the argument that the existence of the national-type schools disadvantaged the attendees of such schools, and that it was these 20 attendees’ fundamental liberties that were impinged by the continued existence of such schools. [66] For instance, article 5(1) provides as follows: Liberty of the person 5. (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance 25 with law. S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 39 [67] The right to life has been held to mean the right to live with human dignity, and would include the right to adequate nutrition, shelter and human interaction within a functioning society. The existence of the national-type schools, according to the appellants, do not confer upon the attendees of the schools an adequate command of the Malay language, which would impinge 5 upon their ability to earn a living and to fully interact with all facets of society. Thus, properly understood, the appellants’ constitutional challenge emanated at least partly from a sense of concern over the well-being for the attendees of the national-type schools, who would be, in the main, students of Chinese and Indian descent. 10 [68] Though the appellants must rightfully be applauded for their regard and altruism for their fellow Malaysians, this submission overlooks the fact that enrolment in a national-type school is entirely voluntary. There would be nothing in the law that would prevent the parents of a child from choosing a national school (with Malay as the medium of instruction) over a national-type 15 school. Thus, even if the reduction in opportunities is real not merely illusory, the decision to attend a national-type school would not have been one forced upon the parents of the child, and would have been made with the attendant benefits of a national-type school in mind, such as perhaps the preservation of the sense of connection to one’s culture and heritage, and indeed the promotion 20 of the diversity and multi-culturalism that makes our society unique. That there exists a choice would vitiate any notion of impingement of fundamental liberties. [69] We accordingly affirmed the finding and conclusion of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, which were that the question posed must be answered in the negative. 25 S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 40 LOCUS STANDI AND JUSTICIABILITY [70] Having disposed of the entirety of the substantive appeals on the two questions posed, we did not consider it necessary for us to address at length the two remaining questions, relating to the locus standi of the plaintiffs and the justiciability of the matters forming the dispute in this case, except to observe 5 that where there is said to exist violations of constitutional safeguards, the court should not be shy to conclude that, save for plainly frivolous cases, an ordinary citizen ought always be clothed with the necessary locus standi to seek legal redress before the courts, and that matters pertaining to the construction of written laws and the Federal Constitution should always be within the remit of 10 the courts. CONCLUSION [71] For the reasons explained in this judgment, all the appeals were dismissed, save for the appeal in Appeal No. 458, which was allowed. In light of the fact that the matters raised were in the public interest, we directed that 15 parties bear their own costs. 8 December 2023 Azizul Azmi bin Adnan Judge of the Court of Appeal 20 For the Minister of Education and the Government of Malaysia: Mr Liew Horng Bin—Senior Federal Counsel S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohd Zai Mustafa v Menteri Pendidikan & seven other appeals 41 For MAPPIM & GAPENA: En Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla & En Aidil bin Khalid—Messrs Amelda Fuad Abi & Aidil For Dong Zong and Jiao Zong: Mr KF Wong, Ms Lim Hoon Shi & Mr Ong Jian Kai—Messrs KF Wong & Lee For Majlis Bahasa Cina Malaysia, Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia and PERTAMA: Mr. Bastion Vendargon, Mr Gene Vendargon, Ms Uma Gunaseelan & Mr Kumaradevan Rajadevan—Messrs Gunaseelan & Associates For Parti Gerakan Malaysia: Ms Alison Goh—Messrs Nazri Aziz Masura Mak & Tan For the MIC: Mr Vischaal Yogaratnam, Ms Nievanee Ravindran & Ms Vasanti Arumugam— Messrs. Vas & Co. For the MCA: Datuk Ben Chan, Ms Sangheeta Vasanth Kumar & Mr Caleb Goh Hern-Ee— Messrs. Ben Chan For Sekolah Menengah Persendirian Chong Hwa Kuala Lumpur: Dato’ Arthur Wang Ming Way, Ms Vicky Ong Xiao Qiu & Mr Dhayalan Naidu Doraisamy—Messrs. Arthur Wang Lian & Associates For Persatuan Thamizhar Malaysia: Mr Jeramal Ganesan Muthu & Mr Jonathan Charles Anthony—Messrs. J Ganesan Tajul Anuar & Co. For Persatuan Tamilar Thirunal Perak: Mr Saravanaban Mathialagan & Ms Ng Mung Ying—Messrs. Madhi Param & Co For Persatuan Gabungan Kebajikan Guru-Guru Bersara Sekolah Tamil Malaysia: Mr M Athimulan, Mr Vaithylingam Rajo, Mr Rajo Kuppan—RV Lingam & Co S/N myQxwnvNEUW0HGVMOLwGGw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24NCC-188-03/2023

PEMOHON BIDARI EHSAN SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) KAMARULZAMAN BIN ABD JALIL 2. ) AZMAN BIN ATAN 3. ) MOHD ZAHIR BIN MAMAT@MOHAMAD 4. ) YAP CHOW TAI 5. ) DIONG SHEIH YEE 6. ) LIM HANG TEE 7. ) TUG KAI LUI 8. ) NORA AZLINA BT MOHD NOOR 9. ) ABDUL MALIK BIN AMID 10. ) CHE MAH BT MD ISA11. ) YAKOP BIN OMAR1 2. ) MOHAMAD KAMIL BIN HARUN1 3. ) SITI MAWAR BINTI HJ MD LAJIS1 4. ) YONG LAI MUN1 5. ) JAMILAH BINTI ISMAIL1 6. ) FANG YOKE KUAN1 7. ) CHIN MIN THONG1 8. ) HUANG SIN KIO1 9. ) YAP YIN PENG20. ) KWANG SUI MOY21. ) KWONG KENG WAI2 2. ) SHU KWAI SIM2 3. ) SYDNEY SOO CHEE SENG2 4. ) CHIANG YEN TEK2 5. ) CHONG KUAI2 6. ) LOKE CHOW YEW2 7. ) AKBAL SINGH A/L GURDIAL SINGH2 8. ) TING HUONG PING2 9. ) JASMINDER KAUR A/P HERBANS SINGH30. ) JAMAL BIN SERON31. ) MUK SENG WAI3 2. ) MOHAMED NAPI BIN MOHD ZIN3 3. ) EU JOO SON3 4. ) AHMAD FAIZAL BIN ABD RAHMAN3 5. ) AINUN BINTI HAJI OMAR3 6. ) SAHINDERPAL SINGH A/L HARBAN SINGH3 7. ) YAP SIEW YIN3 8. ) GOH GEOK CHOO3 9. ) MOHAMAD SHOFI BIN OSMAN40. ) TAY HANG POO41. ) LEE SIONG CHUN4 2. ) ANN PEI FERN4 3. ) WAN NOOR IZA BINTI WAN YAHAYA4 4. ) NAZLI BINTI IDRIS4 5. ) CHUA LONG JUAY4 6. ) KHAIRUL YAZID BIN MASROR4 7. ) CHUA KONG CHENG4 8. ) KAMARIAH BINTI UJUD4 9. ) CHA KONG MIN50. ) WONG PENG PENG51. ) ZAMARIAH BINTI BACHIK5 2. ) NOOR WATI BINTI DAIMAN5 3. ) LOKE KONG POO5 4. ) LIM LEE KIEW5 5. ) VIJAYAN A/L ARUMUGAM5 6. ) SHUI KWAI SIM5 7. ) SEE SIEW LAN5 8. ) LIEW TAI THYE5 9. ) HUSSIN BIN ABDULLAH60. ) CHEN YOOK LEN @ AH FOOK61. ) CHUA OI LENG6 2. ) WONG WAI KUAN6 3. ) MAH PHOOI YOKE6 4. ) CHONG YON FUNG6 5. ) CHEAH TONG SENG6 6. ) LEE LIN NGOR @ LEE LIH NGOR6 7. ) LIAU SAI PING6 8. ) KHAIROL NIZAM BIN RAMLI6 9. ) HOO SUI @ HOO KUM SUI70. ) CHONG LEE LEE71. ) ARUMUGAM A/L PERUMAL7 2. ) LAI JOO LIAN7 3. ) LIM CHAI KIM7 4. ) KHOO HOO NEO7 5. ) ABD RASHID BIN JANI7 6. ) PHUA LYE HONG7 7. ) TAN SIEW LEE7 8. ) THANABALAN A/L K. RAJAGOPAL7 9. ) LEE WAI YEE80. ) MOHD NADZIRI BIN ISMAIL81. ) ADAN BIN WAISO8 2. ) TAN AI KHIM8 3. ) YEE LAI PING8 4. ) SHARIFAH JANORWATI BINTI WAN MOHAMAD8 5. ) YEW CHUI FUNG8 6. ) BEATRIX VOHRAH NEE CHEW GHIM NEO8 7. ) HETISH CHANDER SHARMA8 8. ) YAP YEE LOONG8 9. ) LEE CHEW KUEN90. ) Ab Rahman Bin Md Som91. ) Abd Halim Bin Abd Wahab9 2. ) Abd. Latif Bin Haji Gafor9 3. ) Abdul Majid Bin Hassan9 4. ) Sabariah Binti Kassim9 5. ) Abdul Rashid Bin Halim9 6. ) Abu Harith Bin Shamsuddin9 7. ) Ahmad Bin Hj Abdullah9 8. ) Ahmad Radzuan Bin Hassan9 9. ) Hj Ahmad Zaki Bin Hj Hassan100. ) AB RAHMAN BIN MD SOM

Sanction for scheme of arrangement after obtaining requisite approval from scheme creditors - Whether the pari passu principle in winding up breached - Whether scheme is in effect a mechanism to achieve an en bloc sale of the units - Whether scheme is an abuse of process

15/12/2023

YA Tuan Ong Chee Kwan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3ec368bd-07ad-4c8e-bcee-354e43afaab9&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.: WA-24NCC-188-03/2023 In the matter of Bidari Ehsan Sdn. Bhd. (In Liquidation) (Company No.: 420790-D); And In the matter of a proposed scheme of arrangement and compromise and an application to restrain proceedings pursuant to Section 366 and Section 368 of the Companies Act 2016; And In the matter of Section 366 and Section 368 of the Companies Act 2016; And In the matter of the Rules of Court 2012 BETWEEN BIDARI EHSAN SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) (COMPANY NO.: 420790-D) … PLAINTIFF AND 1. KAMARULZAMAN BIN ABD JALIL (NRIC NO.: 621223-10-7529) 15/12/2023 14:33:15 WA-24NCC-188-03/2023 Kand. 66 S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 2. AZMAN BIN ATAN (NRIC NO.: 630607-10-5535) 3. MOHD ZAHIR BIN MAMAT@MOHAMAD (NRIC NO.: 681111-04-5575) 4. YAP CHOW TAI (NRIC NO.: 551203-10-6472) 5. DIONG SHEIH YEE (NRIC NO.: 791225-08-5273) 6. LIM HANG TEE (NRIC NO.: 600806-04-5013) 7. TUG KAI LUI (NRIC NO.: 610315-04-5122) 8. NORA AZLINA BT MOHD NOOR (NRIC NO.: 661226-08-5122) 9. ABDUL MALIK BIN AMID (NRIC NO.: 601015-04-5417) 10. CHE MAH BT MD ISA (NRIC NO.: 611109-02-6144) 11. YAKOP BIN OMAR (NRIC NO.: 650820-01-6361) 12. MOHAMAD KAMIL BIN HARUN (NRIC NO.: 560412-08-5801) 13. SITI MAWAR BINTI HJ MD LAJIS (NRIC NO.: 690530-01-5084) 14. YONG LAI MUN (NRIC NO.: 720920-14-5110) 15. JAMILAH BINTI ISMAIL (NRIC NO.: 620712-03-5306) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 16. FANG YOKE KUAN (NRIC NO.: 601027-10-6990) 17. CHIN MIN THONG (NRIC NO.: 590626-10-5115) 18. HUANG SIN KIO (NRIC NO.: 590616-05-5302) 19. YAP YIN PENG (NRIC NO.: 511004-10-5008) 20. KWANG SUI MOY (NRIC NO.: 541015-10-5684) 21. KWONG KENG WAI (NRIC NO.: 510623-10-5707) 22. SHU KWAI SIM (NRIC NO.: 591211-06-5400) 23. SYDNEY SOO CHEE SENG (NRIC NO.: 700904-10-5655) 24. CHIANG YEN TEK (NRIC NO.: 611118-10-6509) 25. CHONG KUAI (NRIC NO.: 340924-01-5044) 26. LOKE CHOW YEW (NRIC NO.: 560417-10-5584) 27. AKBAL SINGH A/L GURDIAL SINGH (NRIC NO.: 680106-02-5401) 28. TING HUONG PING (NRIC NO.: 770306-08-6857) 29. JASMINDER KAUR A/P HERBANS SINGH (NRIC NO.: 750730-14-5598) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 30. JAMAL BIN SERON (NRIC NO.: 661117-08-5545) 31. MUK SENG WAI (NRIC NO.: 720925-14-5523) 32. MOHAMED NAPI BIN MOHD ZIN (NRIC NO.: 590420-03-5609) 33. EU JOO SON (NRIC NO.: 590218-05-5075) 34. AHMAD FAIZAL BIN ABD RAHMAN (NRIC NO.: 750222-01-6845) 35. AINUN BINTI HAJI OMAR (NRIC NO.: 521113-03-5212) 36. SAHINDERPAL SINGH A/L HARBAN SINGH (NRIC NO.: 550430-10-5395) 37. YAP SIEW YIN (NRIC NO.: 761218-14-5808) 38. GOH GEOK CHOO (NRIC NO.: 600806-08-5795) 39. MOHAMAD SHOFI BIN OSMAN (NRIC NO.: 580923-07-5267) 40. TAY HANG POO (NRIC NO.: 650526-08-5761) 41. LEE SIONG CHUN (NRIC NO.: 710324-08-5335) 42. ANN PEI FERN (NRIC NO.: 720204-10-5898) 43. WAN NOOR IZA BINTI WAN YAHAYA (NRIC NO.: 671201-02-5042) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 44. NAZLI BINTI IDRIS (NRIC NO.: 591106-03-5218) 45. CHUA LONG JUAY (NRIC NO.: 560701-10-5805) 46. KHAIRUL YAZID BIN MASROR (NRIC NO.: 660404-10-5049) 47. CHUA KONG CHENG (NRIC NO.: 720505-04-5009) 48. KAMARIAH BINTI UJUD (NRIC NO.: 571221-05-5072) 49. CHA KONG MIN (NRIC NO.: 590626-05-5277) 50. WONG PENG PENG (NRIC NO.: 810101-10-6328) 51. ZAMARIAH BINTI BACHIK (NRIC NO.: 680220-05-5022) 52. NOOR WATI BINTI DAIMAN (NRIC NO.: 700421-01-5866) 53. LOKE KONG POO (NRIC NO.: 560414-10-6194) 54. LIM LEE KIEW (NRIC NO.: 530922-07-5227) 55. VIJAYAN A/L ARUMUGAM (NRIC NO.: 611108-06-5061) 56. SHUI KWAI SIM (NRIC NO.: 591211-06-5400) 57. SEE SIEW LAN (NRIC NO.: 700427-10-5440) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 58. LIEW TAI THYE (NRIC NO.: 620705-06-5208) 59. HUSSIN BIN ABDULLAH (NRIC NO.: 680316-10-6015) 60. CHEN YOOK LEN @ AH FOOK (NRIC NO.: 470814-05-5083) 61. CHUA OI LENG (NRIC NO.: 500127-10-5020) 62. WONG WAI KUAN (NRIC NO.: 770528-14-5162) 63. MAH PHOOI YOKE (NRIC NO.: 591021-06-5370) 64. CHONG YON FUNG (NRIC NO.: 570601-02-5962) 65. CHEAH TONG SENG (NRIC NO.: 571116-06-5033) 66. LEE LIN NGOR @ LEE LIH NGOR (NRIC NO.: 640104-03-5482) 67. LIAU SAI PING (NRIC NO.: 720209-06-5135) 68. KHAIROL NIZAM BIN RAMLI (NRIC NO.: 731113-10-5079) 69. HOO SUI @ HOO KUM SUI (NRIC NO.: 391120-05-5219) 70. CHONG LEE LEE (NRIC NO.: 590406-04-5034) 71. ARUMUGAM A/L PERUMAL (NRIC NO.: 540115-04-5127) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 72. LAI JOO LIAN (NRIC NO.: 530929-04-5098) 73. LIM CHAI KIM (NRIC NO.: 611118-05-5414) 74. KHOO HOO NEO (NRIC NO.: 510102-04-5374) 75. ABD RASHID BIN JANI (NRIC NO.: 670907-01-5685) 76. PHUA LYE HONG (NRIC NO.: 650114-10-7450) 77. TAN SIEW LEE (NRIC NO.: 760126-06-5232) 78. THANABALAN A/L K. RAJAGOPAL (NRIC NO.: 700529-10-5919) 79. LEE WAI YEE (NRIC NO.: 890211-10-5592) 80. MOHD NADZIRI BIN ISMAIL (NRIC NO.: 571121-05-5489) 81. ADAN BIN WAISO (NRIC NO.: 620922-01-5485) 82. TAN AI KHIM (NRIC NO.: 440711-11-5082) 83. YEE LAI PING (NRIC NO.: 680811-10-6610) 84. SHARIFAH JANORWATI BINTI WAN MOHAMAD (NRIC NO.: 680510-13-6074) 85. YEW CHUI FUNG (NRIC NO.: 781029-14-5938) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 86. BEATRIX VOHRAH NEE CHEW GHIM NEO (NRIC NO.: 390316-71-5034) 87. HETISH CHANDER SHARMA (NRIC NO.: 390910-10-5693) 88. YAP YEE LOONG (NRIC NO.: 810706-14-5725) 89. LEE CHEW KUEN (NRIC NO.: 730220-08-5127) 90. AB RAHMAN BIN MD SOM (NRIC NO.: 590201-04-5137) 91. ABD HALIM BIN ABD WAHAB (NRIC NO.: 620503-08-6043) 92. ABD. LATIF BIN HAJI GAPOR (NRIC NO.: 551210-06-5269) 93. ABDUL MAJID BIN HASSAN (NRIC NO.: 600915-08-6797) 94. SABARIAH BINTI KASSIM (NRIC NO.: 620723-10-6368) 95. ABDUL RASHID BIN HALIM (NRIC NO.: 670201-03-5705) 96. ABU HARITH BIN SHAMSUDDIN (NRIC NO.: 600717-08-5451) 97. AHMAD BIN HJ ABDULLAH (NRIC NO.: 650402-10-6057) 98. AHMAD RADZUAN BIN HASSAN (NRIC NO.: 610607-08-6129) 99. HJ AHMAD ZAKI BIN HJ HASSAN (NRIC NO.: 491123-08-5673) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 100. ALI NAPIAH BIN HASSIM (NRIC NO.: 520312-05-5203) 101. AMRAN BIN MUNIR (NRIC NO.: 651030-10-5735) 102. AZMEE B ITAM (NRIC NO.: 600710-05-5575) 103. BASIR BIN MOHAMED JOHAR (NRIC NO.: 650906-71-5593) 104. CHEONG SAW KONG (NRIC NO.: 680326-08-5465) 105. ESNAN BIN AB. GHANI (NRIC NO.: 540504-10-5693) 106. FARIDAH BT AHMAD (NRIC NO.: 620808-10-6498) 107. HABSAH BINTI KASIM (NRIC NO.: 640101-41-9392) 108. HAMDAN BIN BAHAROM (NRIC NO.: 590920-04-5043) 109. CHAN CHIN SAM (NRIC NO.: 431128-05-5137) 110. HAMDANI BIN SADIMAN (NRIC NO.: 560129-01-5541) 111. HASIMAH BINTI JUSOH (NRIC NO.: 700916-11-5156) 112. IMALUDDEN BIN ABDULLAH (NRIC NO.: 510709-03-5033) 113. KAMAR BIN KASSIM (NRIC NO.: 580305-10-5473) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 114. KAMISAH BINTI SAMSURI (NRIC NO.: 760721-05-5194) 115. KANNAMAH A/P MOTTAN (NRIC NO.: 590911-08-5440) 116. KAVARY A/P VAYAPURY (NRIC NO.: 670809-10-5964) 117. LAI SEI CHAI (NRIC NO.: 750516-01-6859) 118. LAW HUA EIM (NRIC NO.: 640321-08-5830) 119. LIHAN BIN ALI (NRIC NO.: 560919-04-5243) 120. MAHMUD BIN NIHAT (NRIC NO.: 560219-06-5147) 121. MAIZURA BINTI OTHMAN (NRIC NO.: 601023-05-5156) 122. MARCELLA BINTI MELAN (NRIC NO.: 730316-01-5474) 123. MD. ZAWAWI BIN SHAMROZ (NRIC NO.: 530619-11-5249) 124. MISS YATI BT DANI (NRIC NO.: 540207-10-5502) 125. MOHAMAD BIN SAARI (NRIC NO.: 580608-02-5411) 126. MOHD ARIRI BIN ALWI WEE (NRIC NO.: 780707-03-5283) 127. MOHD HAIRUDIN BIN MUKRI (NRIC NO.: 600101-10-5813) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 128. MOKHTAR BIN ADNAN (NRIC NO.: 570920-01-6895) 129. NIK SALIMI BIN NIK MOHAMED SALLEH (NRIC NO.: 650326-03-5583) 130. NIK SHAIRAN BIN NIK MOHAMED SALLEH (NRIC NO.: 670831-03-5697) 131. NORDIN BIN AHMAD (NRIC NO.: 600102-11-5343) 132. NORHAIDAH BINTI ALI (NRIC NO.: 630911-04-5450) 133. NOR SAMAH BINTI ABD KADIR (NRIC NO.: 630125-10-5014) 134. RAMLAH BINTI MOKHTAR (NRIC NO.: 651126-10-6484) 135. AZIZA BINTI AHMAD (NRIC NO.: 700324-10-5536) 136. RANJIT SINGH A/L DHARAM SINGH (NRIC NO.: 710814-08-5645) 137. RAZALI BIN ISNIN (NRIC NO.: 550401-05-5421) 138. ROSELINA BT AMIRULDIN (NRIC NO.: 610524-02-5718) 139. ROSLAN BIN ARSHAD (NRIC NO.: 691006-11-5307) 140. ROSLINA BINTI SHAHRI (NRIC NO.: 730112-06-5066) 141. ROSLLINA BINTI MAT REJAB (NRIC NO.: 650525-02-5830) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 142. SAIDAH BINTI AHMAD (NRIC NO.: 530520-01-6072) 143. SAFFUWAN BIN MOHAMED JOHAR (NRIC NO.: 72 0327-14-5689) 144. SALWA BINTI HASHIM (NRIC NO.: 581220-09-5098) 145. SHAHARUDDIN BIN RAMLY (NRIC NO.: 641226-08-5941) 146. NOR SAMAH BINTI ABD KADIR (SELAKU WAKIL PESAKA BAGI SHAKIR BIN MOHAMED JOHAR) (NRIC NO.: 630125-10-5014) 147. SELVARAJOO A/L VAYAPURY (NRIC NO.: 640810-01-5083) 148. SITI SAPIYAH BINTI MOHD DEWA (NRIC NO.: 670527-04-5102) 149. SURIYATI BT MOHD LAZIM (NRIC NO.: 551103-06-5378) 150. SYED MOHD AZIZI BIN SYED SAIDIN (NRIC NO.: 730205-06-5057) 151. WAHID BIN OMAR (NRIC NO.: 560108-71-5047) 152. YUSLIZA BINTI JUSOH (NRIC NO.: 791006-11-5268) 153. ZAINON BINTI AHMAD KUTTY (NRIC NO.: 580128-06-5078) 154. ZAINUDDIN BIN ABD HAMID (NRIC NO.: 500920-02-5077) 155. ZAINUL ABIDIN BIN MOHAMED ALI (NRIC NO.: 601121-07-5767) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 156. ZAKARIA BIN SHAFIE (NRIC NO.: 580808-02-5299) 157. ZAMANI BIN JOPRI (NRIC NO.: 601106-10-6617) 158. ZULKIFLI BIN JAMALUDDIN (NRIC NO.: 650807-06-5345) 159. TAN ENG GUAN (NRIC NO.: 630414-10-6865) 160. KOPERASI KOGUMA BERHAD (KO-OP NO. 35) 161. KOPERASI PERUMAHAN ANGKATAN TENTERA BERHAD (KO-OP NO. 4093) 162. TAICHEN REALTY SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 380007-T) 163. TAI CHEE CHOONG (NRIC NO.: 761228-14-5211) 164. OOI SIEW CHEN (NRIC NO.: 620225-02-5258) 165. NG SOO SHIN (NRIC NO.: 560521-10-6069) 166. ONG KOK AUN (NRIC NO.: 631218-08-5993) 167. YAP GAIK CHOO (NRIC NO.: 700604-10-5362) …INTERVENERS JUDGMENT S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Introduction [1] This is the Applicant’s Originating Summons filed pursuant to Section 366 (3) and (4) of the Companies Act, 2016 (“CA 2016”) for the Court to approve and give sanction to the Applicant’s scheme of arrangement that has received the requisite approvals from its Scheme Creditors. [2] In considering whether to approve and grant sanction to the proposed scheme, the Court does not act as a mere rubber stamp but will examine if the proposed scheme though having met the approval of the Scheme Creditors, is nevertheless, one that an intelligent and honest man, as a member of the class concerned and acting in respect of his interest might reasonably approve the proposed scheme. The Court must also be satisfied that the proposed scheme is fair and equitable in the circumstances. [3] In this case, the scheme of arrangement is proposed in the context of a liquidation. The proposed scheme is aimed at re-developing the existing twenty-one (21) blocks of units serving as hostel accommodation in a mixed development project that had been undertaken and completed by the Applicant. It sought to demolish all the existing 21 blocks and in their place, build new apartments on the land with the owners of the units being given the opportunity to “opt-in”, namely, to participate in the new development to purchase the new units build therein from the White Knight, for a substantially higher price albeit with a right to set off from the new purchase price the sums previously paid for their original units under their respective original sale and purchase agreements with the Applicant (“the S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Original SPAs”) or to “opt-out”, namely, to receive a sum, says to represent a higher than the current market value of the units in return for surrendering their units to the White Knight to be demolished. [4] Significantly, the proposed scheme is confined to only purchasers who are still currently owners of the units. The following persons are excluded and are not recognized as Scheme Creditors: (a) any person who did not execute the Original SPAs for the purchase of units in the project; (b) any person whose Original SPA has been validly terminated; or (c) any person whose unit has been auctioned by any banks. [5] There are 2 interesting legal issues raised before this Court. Firstly, whether by excluding the other unsecured creditors of the Applicant as Scheme Creditors, the principle of pari passu that is fundamental to a winding up has been breached. Secondly, whether the proposed scheme is effectively a devise to permit the White Knight to secure an en bloc sale of the 21 blocks and if so, whether this is a deprivation of the right to property and thereby rendering the proposed scheme not one where an intelligent and honest man of that class would approve and or the proposed scheme is otherwise unfair and inequitable under the circumstances. Background facts [6] Prior to its winding-up, the Applicant was the developer of a 147- acre land (“Project Lands”) for a mixed development project S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 comprises a residential scheme (“Taman Universiti”), hostel accommodation (“SiberTel”), and a commercial area (“Siber Square”) (collectively referred to as “SiberTel Project”). [7] SiberTel was developed in 1999 to cater for college and university students. It consists of 21 blocks comprising a total of 4,566 units of hostel accommodation and was built on 8 parcels of the Project Lands. [8] All 4,566 units were sold to 2,720 purchasers (“Purchasers”) between year 2000 to 2002 for the purchase price of between RM33,600 to RM36,000. [9] There was a guaranteed Annual License Fee (“Annual License Fee”) arrangement equivalent to 10% of the purchase price between the Applicant and the Purchasers, where the Purchasers would be paid once every 3 months for a period of 10 years after the hostel units have been completed. [10] Upon the completion of the hostel units, the Applicant was only able to make regular payments of the Annual License Fee from 2002 to 2005 when the Applicant started to face financial difficulties. [11] As a result, the Applicant accumulated huge debts consisting of outstanding quit rents, assessments, insurance premiums, water bills and electricity bills. [12] This led to SiberTel’s condition to be increasingly neglected and poorly managed, causing various equipment, fixtures and fittings, S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 electrical wirings and electrical appliances like fans and lights to be stolen. [13] All 2,720 Purchasers had never occupied their units. This is because SiberTel was built specifically as a hostel accommodation without living area or kitchen facilities. [14] In addition, SiberTel is presently in an inhabitable state as the area became enveloped with vegetations with no water and electricity supply. [15] Whilst the obligation was on the Applicant to apply for strata titles, the Applicant had not applied for strata titles for all the 4,566 units. [16] Upon the Applicant being wound up and when the Liquidator of the Applicant (“Liquidator”) took over the affairs of the Applicant, the Liquidator had made inquiries as to the cost of applying for strata titles and the costs of refurbishing SiberTel. [17] The estimated cost to apply for strata titles is approximately RM3,000 per unit, which totals to RM13,698,000.00 whilst the cost to refurbish all 21 blocks of SiberTel is more than RM20,000,000.00. [18] To date, the Liquidator had not undertaken the application for strata titles or refurbishment of SiberTel due to lack of funds. [19] In 2016, a few purchasers approached one Rising Charm Sdn. Bhd. as the White Knight to come up with a proposal to rehabilitate SiberTel. S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [20] The Liquidator in principle had no objection to the White Knight’s proposal subject to the Purchasers’ approval. [21] Subsequently, on 15.5.2017, the Applicant was granted leave to summon a creditors’ meeting with the Purchasers of SiberTel units pursuant to section 366 of the CA 2016 (“1st Creditors’ Meeting”). [22] Unfortunately, the 1st Creditors’ Meeting which was convened on 1.11.2017 had failed to achieve the prerequisite of 75% vote as only 74.662% voted for the proposed scheme. [23] Thereafter, SiberTel remained abandoned until year 2022 where the same White Knight again submitted a revised proposal to rehabilitate SiberTel. [24] The Liquidator similarly had no objection to the White Knight’s revised proposal subject to the Purchasers’ approval. [25] More pertinent to note is that the Selangor Housing and Property Board (“LPHS”) had in principle since year 2017 given its support to the White Knight to rehabilitate SiberTel. [26] Following thereto, on 8.7.2022, the Applicant was granted leave to summon a fresh creditors’ meeting with the Purchasers of the SiberTel units for the purposes of taking into consideration a scheme of arrangement (“2nd Creditors’ Meeting”). [27] This 2nd Creditors’ Meeting is the subject matter of this Originating Summons. S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 The Proposed Scheme of Arrangement [28] UHY Advisory (KL) Sdn. Bhd. was appointed as the scheme advisor. [29] The proposed scheme of arrangement (“Proposed Scheme”) was conceptualised through the Explanatory Statement annexed in Annexure A of Enclosure 1. The Proposed Scheme is formulated to bind a specific class viz. the Purchasers of the SiberTel units. [30] The Proposed Scheme is aimed at redeveloping the Project Lands by demolishing all existing 21 blocks in SiberTel and building new apartments on the Project Lands for dwelling purposes. [31] All demolishment, redevelopment, and rebuilding will be undertaken by the White Knight (“New Development”). All costs and payments towards the New Development will also be paid directly from the White Knight, and not from the assets of the Applicant as the Applicant has no funds and assets. [32] All the Purchasers shall be given the opportunity to participate in the New Development by either opting in or opting out as follows: - Opting in Stage 1 Extinguishing of the Applicant’s existing obligations towards the Purchasers (a) The Purchasers will enter into a new sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) with the White Knight, which will effectively supersede the S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 original SPA between the Applicant and the Purchasers. (b) The Purchasers will also be entitled to set off the purchase price of the new SPA with the purchase price of the original SPA. (c) Any Purchasers with more than 1 unit may opt to combine his SPA price to set off against the purchase price of the new SPA. (d) Any shortfall after the set-off shall be borne by the Purchasers. Stage 2 Creation of replacement of fresh obligations between the Purchasers and the White Knight (a) The new SPA will govern the relationship, rights and obligations of the Purchasers and the White Knight. (b) The Applicant is discharged from the new relationship between the Purchasers and the White Knight by virtue of the new SPA. Opting out Stage 1 Extinguishing of the Applicant’s existing obligations towards the Purchasers S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (a) The Purchasers may opt out by informing the scheme advisor within 3 months from the completion of the Conditions Precedent. (b) If the Purchaser fails to notify the scheme advisor of his election within 3 months from the completion of the Conditions Precedent, the Purchaser shall be deemed to have opted out. (c) All opt-out Purchasers shall be deemed to have agreed to terminate the original SPA with the Applicant with no further claims against the Applicant. Stage 2 Creation of replacement of fresh obligations between the Purchasers and the White Knight In return, the White Knight will make payments to each opt-out Purchaser in the following manner: - (a) 1st Option – to pay RM12,000 per unit if the opt- out Purchasers opt to receive the sum after 36 months from the date of fulfilment of the Conditions Precedent; (b) 2nd Option – to pay RM10,500 per unit if the opt- out Purchasers opt to receive the sum after 12 months from the date of fulfilment of the Conditions Precedent; (c) 3rd Option – to pay RM9,200 per unit if the opt- out Purchasers opt out early by giving written notice from 1 January 2023 to 31 May 2024. S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [33] In respect of the opt-out sums offered for each of the SiberTel units, the Liquidator had obtained an independent Valuation Report dated 14.11.2022 (“Valuation Report”) from Messrs. Henry Butcher Malaysia (SEL) Sdn. Bhd. which provides that the Market Value per unit is only about RM8,000 whilst the Forced Sale Value per unit is RM6,000 in its existing physical “as is where is” condition. [34] The above valuation is consistent with the Proclamations of Sale from year 2016 to year 2018 for the public auctions of some of the SiberTel units. [35] Thus, the lowest “opt-out” offer viz. RM9,200 per unit by the White Knight under the Proposed Scheme is in fact 15% higher than the highest valuation given in the Valuation Report. To put it another way, the Applicant maintained that the Purchasers are not in any way short-changed under the Proposed Scheme. [36] As the Liquidator is not in a position to refurbish the 21 blocks of SiberTel nor applied for strata titles due to lack of funds, it is contended that the Proposed Scheme is clearly a better option as the successful implementation of the Proposed Scheme would guarantee some form of return to the Purchasers as opposed to its current state. The wider social objective and public interest of reviving the abandoned SiberTel can also be achieved. [37] The Applicant has duly served the Court Order dated 7.8.2022 granting leave to summon a fresh creditors’ meeting with the Purchasers for the purposes of taking into consideration the Proposed Scheme to all the Purchasers on 6.8.2022 via registered S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 posts. The aforesaid High Court Order was also advertised in the Berita Harian and New Straits Times newspapers on 26.7.2022. [38] Subsequently, the Explanatory Statement containing the Notice of Meeting was served on all the Purchasers on 10.11.2022, 11.11.2022 and 14.11.2022 via registered posts and the Notice of Meeting was also advertised in the Berita Harian and New Straits Times newspapers on 21.11.2022. [39] At the 2nd Creditors’ Meeting which was convened on 13.12.2022, 86.69% of the Purchasers who were present at the meeting had supported and voted for the Proposed Scheme. [40] Having obtained 86.69% in value of the Purchasers [which far exceeded the 75% threshold requirement pursuant to section 366(3) of the CA 2016], the Applicant on 31.3.2023 filed Enclosure 1 herein for the Proposed Scheme to be sanctioned by this Court. Objections to Sanction [41] There are 3 groups of interveners who intervened at this Sanction stage: - a) the 1st to 89th Interveners (added vide Enclosure 6) who objected to Enclosure 1 (“1st Group of Interveners”); b) the 90th to 158th Interveners (added vide Enclosure 8) who also objected to Enclosure 1 (“2nd Group of Interveners”); and S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 c) the 159th to 167th Interveners (added vide Enclosure 17) who supported Enclosure 1 (“3rd Group of Interveners”). [42] Of the total 158 Interveners from the combined 1st and 2nd Groups of Interveners, 71 of them did not attend the 2nd Creditors’ Meeting, 4 attended and voted in favour of the Proposed Scheme, 1 had attended but abstained from voting, 60 had attended and voted against the Proposed Scheme and 21 had attended and voted but their votes were deemed as “spoilt votes”. [43] Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the fact that these 158 Interveners now intervened in the proceedings at this Sanction stage to object to the Proposed Scheme must be taken to mean that they are against the Court giving the sanction to the same. To my mind, they are not precluded from changing their minds even at this late stage of the proceedings. Legal issues at Sanction Stage [44] The Interveners have raised the following legal issues in opposing the Court granting its sanction to the Proposed Scheme: a) whether the application should be filed before the Winding Up Court; b) whether is permissible in law for a company under liquidation to enter into a scheme of arrangement with only a preferred class of creditors to the exclusion of other creditors of the company and thereby breaching the pari passu principle; S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 c) whether the Proposed Scheme is such that ‘an intelligent and honest man, a member of the class concerned and acting in respect of his interest, might reasonably approve’ and that the Scheme is considered “fair and equitable” for the Court to give its sanction. [45] Each of the legal issues above shall be considered in turn. Proper forum to file Enclosure 1 [46] The Applicant has been wound up by the Insolvency Court at Kuala Lumpur. As the Court that ordered the winding up of the Applicant, the Insolvency Court is seized with the jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to the winding-up of the Applicant. The Proposed Scheme in this case is made by the Liquidator of the Applicant and is therefore a matter relating to the winding up of the Applicant. [47] Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it is contended by the Applicant that all payments towards the New Development and the “opt-out” payments to be made under the Proposed Scheme are directly from the White Knight, a third party, who is not a creditor or a contributory of the Applicant. [48] There is therefore no distribution from the assets of the Applicant for the New Development. Instead, the Proposed Scheme envisaged the Applicant being released from its obligations to pay its debts to the Purchasers and in its place, a new contract is created between the White Knight and the Purchasers. S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [49] Hence, it is contended that the Proposed Scheme is one that would operate outside the winding-up of the Applicant. It is contended that since the Proposed Scheme is outside the primary object of winding- up viz. ‘to collect and distribute the assets of the company pari passu amongst unsecured creditors after payment of preferential debt’ [See: the Court of Appeal case of Ganda Setia Cemerlang Sdn. Bhd. & Anor v Maika Holdings Bhd (In Liquidation) [2017] 6 MLJ 661], there is no necessity for the application to be filed before the Winding-Up Court. [50] In addition, the Applicant further contended that under Order 88 Rule 2 read together with Appendix C of the Rules of Court 2012, it provides that except for proceedings relating to the winding-up of companies and capital reduction under the CA 2016, all other proceedings shall be commenced by Originating Summons. [51] Reference was also made to the Atkin’s Court Forms Malaysia – Companies (General) where Procedural Table 1: Proceedings by way of Originating Summons of the same provides that an application to approve a compromise or arrangement between a company and its creditors or any class of them shall be commenced by Originating Summons. [52] Procedural Table 11: Scheme of Arrangement, Reconstruction and Amalgamation further provides that the applicant of the scheme is required to prepare and present at the Court Registry 3 copies of Originating Summons to sanction the proposed scheme as approved at the creditors’ meeting. S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [53] On the other hand, every application at the Insolvency Court, other than a petition, shall be made by either a notice of motion or a form of summons [See: Rule 7 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1972]. No application by way of an Originating Summons can be made at the Insolvency Court. [54] Based on the aforesaid, the Applicant submitted that Enclosure 1 is rightly filed before this Court by Originating Summons. Enclosure 1 involves a matter pursuant to section 366 of the CA 2016 which is outside the winding-up regime of the Applicant. [55] With respect, I do not think that it is right to state that because an application for scheme of arrangement is made under section 366 of the CA 2016, such an application must fall outside the winding up regime of the Applicant. [56] Even though the application under section 366 of the CA 2016 is to be made by way of an Originating Summons and therefore could not be filed in the Insolvency Court, the fact that the application is made by a company in winding up, to my mind, means that the said application is subject to the overarching winding up regime before the Insolvency Court. This means that even though in a scheme of arrangement, the applicant is generally at liberty to exclude certain creditors from the scheme, a different consideration applies when the company is under liquidation in that the applicant must ensure that the pari passu principle must not be infringed unless there are exceptional grounds for departing from the same. S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 [57] Furthermore, although the Originating Summons is not filed in the Insolvency Court, it does not mean that the Court hearing the matter cannot where it finds it more expedient to do so, orders that the Originating Summons be transferred to be heard by the Insolvency Court. This is especially where the proposed scheme of arrangement is so inextricably linked to other factual matrix or matters in the winding up of the company that it would make the Insolvency Court better placed to consider the merits of the scheme of arrangement together with the other issues under the winding up process. [58] However, in the present case, it does not seem to me that the merits of the application cannot be adequately determined by this Court. There can be no doubt that this Court does have the jurisdiction to entertain the application. [59] Accordingly, I would respectfully reject the contention by the Interveners that this Court ought not to hear the application at all. A scheme of arrangement with only a preferred class of creditors and the pari passu principle [60] It is common ground that the following persons are excluded and are not recognized as Scheme Creditors under the Proposed Scheme: a) any person who did not execute the SPA for the purchase of units in the Project; b) any person whose SPA has been validly terminated; or S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 c) any person whose unit has been auctioned by any banks. (“the Excluded Creditors”) [61] The effect of the Excluded Creditors being left out of the class of creditors in the Proposed Scheme means that while the class of creditors in the Proposed Scheme will be receiving direct payments from the White Knight, the Excluded Creditors will be left with the limited assets of the Applicant for the payment of their claims. Further, whilst the Excluded Creditors’ claims against the assets of the Applicant would be based on their proof of debts, the “opt-out” Purchasers would be paid pre-determined fixed sums instead, namely between RM 9,200 to RM 12,000. These sums have no co- relation with the outstanding Annual License Fee owed by the Applicant to them at all. Indeed, under the Proposed Scheme, the “opt-out” Purchasers shall be deemed to have agreed to terminate the Original SPA with the Applicant with no further claims against the Applicant. [62] The aforesaid is prima facie in breach of the pari passu principle since all these creditors, namely both the Excluded Creditors and the “opt-out” Purchasers are treated as ‘unsecured creditors’ of the Applicant and ought therefore to be treated equally. [63] However, the Applicant contended that a plain reading of section 366(1)(c) and section 366(3)(d) of the CA 2016 would permit the liquidator to enter into a scheme of arrangement with a single class of creditors comprising only the Purchasers of the SiberTel units in the Project. S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [64] In support, the Applicant referred to the Federal Court case of Francis a/l Augustine Pereira v Dataran Mantin Sdn. Bhd. & Ors and other appeals [2014] 6 MLJ 56. [65] In Dataran Mantin, a scheme of arrangement was formulated solely for the purchasers and the secured creditor of an abandoned project excluding from the class, the other non-project creditors of the company. [66] The Federal Court held that the creditors under the project including the secured creditor could be recognised as “a distinct class of creditors” because these creditors’ rights are not so ‘dissimilar to that of the left-out creditors as to make it impossible for them to consult together with a view to their common interest’. The Federal Court further held that it would have been impossible for the scheme creditors to consult with the other left-out unsecured creditors of the company, as their interests were not common. [67] The Federal Court in arriving at this decision had cited with approval the local case of Jin Lin Wood Industries Sdn. Bhd. & Ors v Mulpha International Bhd No. 2 [2005] 7 CLJ 208 where the following was held: “… The mere exclusion of certain creditor does not open the applicants to imputations of mala fides and abuse of process. Under s 176(1), the applicants have the discretion not to compromise with all creditors and the rights of the remaining creditors are merely stayed…” [emphasis added] S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [68] The Federal Court in Dataran Mantin went on to hold at para [49] that the wording used in section 176(1) of the CA 1965 [which is in pari materia with section 366(3) of the CA 2016] is clear and unambiguous in its meaning and as such ought to be construed in its ordinary and natural meaning. The Federal Court had this to say: “… we are of the view that there is no restriction for the scheme to be directed at a distinct class of creditors under s176(1) of the Act. In the instant case the creditors of the project are a distinct class of creditors.” [69] The Applicant also cited the High Court case of Capital Dynasty Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Chiang Bing & Ors [2009] 8 MLJ 841 (“Capital Dynasty”) where another scheme of arrangement involving an abandoned project where the scheme class comprised of the purchasers of the units in the project was also approved by the Court. [70] Armed with the aforesaid 2 cases, the Applicant contended that it is free to enter into the Proposed Scheme with only a single class of creditors viz. the Purchasers of the SiberTel units because it would have been impossible for the Purchasers to consult with the other unsecured creditors of the Applicant due to their uncommon interests. [71] Further, as all payments towards the New Development will be made directly from the White Knight, no payments will be made from the assets of the Applicant. The payments of RM12,000, RM10,500 S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 or RM9,200 to each of the “opt-out” Purchasers will also be made directly from the White Knight to the respective Purchasers. [72] In the circumstances, it was contended that the pari passu principle will not be infringed if the Applicant elects to enter into the Proposed Scheme with only a class of creditors. Instead, it serves to benefit the Applicant and its other unsecured creditors by discharging the Applicant from the unfulfilled obligations owed to this class of creditors viz. the Purchasers. This is because the other unsecured creditors stand to gain more from any realisation or distribution from the assets of the Applicant. [73] I would respectfully disagree. Unlike the facts in Dataran Mantin and Capital Dynasty, this is not a case involving an abandoned project at all. All 4,566 units had been duly constructed and completed and were sold to the 2,720 Purchasers between year 2000 to 2002 for the purchase price of between RM33,600 to RM36,000 for each unit. In other words, the Project had been completed save for the application for the strata titles and the beneficial titles of the units have already been transferred to the Purchasers. [74] Indeed, in the present case, with the completion of the units, the Applicant had entered into a contractual relationship with the Purchasers whereby in consideration of the Applicant being granted the exclusive license to run as the operator and manager of the units as hostel accommodation for students, the Applicant was obliged to pay a guaranteed Annual License Fee equivalent to 10% of the purchase price between the Applicant and the Purchasers, where S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 the Purchasers would be paid once every 3 months for a period of 10 years. [75] It is these Annual License Fee that the Applicant owes to each of the Purchasers in differing sums. These outstanding Annual License Fee are mere debts due which are no different from the debts owed by the Applicant to the Excluded Creditors. The Applicant has huge outstanding debts consisting of quit rents, assessments, insurance premiums, water bills, electricity bills and various other outstanding debts. The debts that are due to these Purchasers are the outstanding Annual License Fee which the Applicant had failed to pay under the aforesaid contractual arrangement. These are unsecured debts and the Purchasers are unsecured creditors of the Applicant in the same class as other unsecured creditors of the Applicant which are not included in the Proposed Scheme. [76] To my mind, the Proposed Scheme results in the unsecured creditors of the Applicant being treated unequally as those Excluded Creditors would not be paid in the same manner as the Scheme Creditors. Whilst the Schemed Creditors can look to the White Knight for payments of their debts, the Excluded Creditors can only look to the limited assets of the company for payments. This is an infringement of the pari passu principle under our winding up laws and the circumstances of this case certainly does not justify a departure from the principle. Whether the Proposed Scheme is fair and equitable [77] There are 3 stages to a scheme of arrangement: S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 a) an application under s. 366(1) of the CA 2016 for an order that a meeting of the relevant classes of creditors to be convened (‘Convening Stage’); b) the actual convening and holding of the meetings of the relevant classes of creditors (‘Meeting Stage’); and c) if the scheme is approved by the requisite majority at the relevant meeting(s), an application is made to the Court for its sanction of the scheme under s. 366(4) of the CA 2016 (‘Sanction Stage’). [78] Once the court-convened meeting has been held, the company may apply for court sanction of the scheme of arrangement. The Court will refer to three (3) criteria for the determination of court sanction as held in the High Court case of In Re Sateras Resources (Malaysia) Bhd [2005] 6 CLJ 194. The Court in the said case referred to UDL Argos Holdings Ltd [2002] 1 HKC 172 and adopted the principles set out in Buckley on the UK Companies Act (14th Ed, 1981) which held as follows: “…… In exercising the power of sanction the court will see, first, that the provisions of the statute have been complied with, second that the class was fairly represented by those who attended the meeting and that the statutory majority are acting bona fide and are not coercing the minority in order to promote interests adverse to those of the class whom they purport to represent, and thirdly, that the arrangement is such as an intelligent and honest man, a member of the class S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 concerned and acting in respect of his interest might reasonably approve. The Federal Court of Australia in the case of Hiberman Friendly Society (NSW) Limited [2002] FCA 913 stated that: Nevertheless, the Court is not a mere rubber stamp and it will look at the arrangement to ensure that it is a reasonable one. If the Court concludes that there is an objection to the arrangement, such that a reasonable person might not approve it, then the Court may refuse to approve the arrangement. The Court must be satisfied that the proposal is at least so fair and reasonable that an intelligent and honest person who is a member of the class of the security holders bound by the arrangement acting alone in respect of his or the interest, as such security holder might approve it …” [emphasis added] [79] The principles guiding the court at the Sanction Stage is also stated in Re Telewest Communications plc (No 2), Re [2005] BCC 36 which emphasised that the Court has no role in determining the commercial merits of the scheme but merely ensuring that the scheme is such that ‘an intelligent and honest man, a member of the class concerned and acting in respect of his interest, might reasonably approve’ and that the Scheme is considered “fair and equitable”. [80] In our present case, owing to the Applicant’s default in making S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 payment of the Annual License Fee as contracted with the Purchasers, sometime on 28.1.2011, a purchaser presented a winding-up petition under Section 218 of the then Companies Act 1965 to wind up the Applicant. The petition was mainly premised on the fact that the Applicant had breached the contract by failing to pay the Annual License Fee. On 22.9.2011, an order was granted by the Kuala Lumpur High Court that the Applicant be wound up and the Liquidator was appointed. [81] At the material time and up to the time the Liquidator took over the affairs of Applicant, the Applicant had not applied for strata titles for the 4,566 units (which it was obliged to do) and SiberTel was in a state of despair. In the year 2013, the Liquidator made inquiries as to the cost of refurbishing SiberTel and it is estimated to cost more than RM20,000,000.00 to refurbish all 21 blocks today. In addition, the cost of application for strata titles in year 2022 for SiberTel is approximately RM3,000.00 per unit, which amounts to RM13,698,000.00. The Liquidator had not undertaken the refurbishment or the application for strata titles due to lack of funds. [82] It is premised on the aforesaid circumstances that the Applicant has now applied for the Proposed Scheme to be sanctioned, having already obtained 89.6901% votes in favour of the same at the Creditors Meeting. [83] When one scrutinised the Proposed Scheme, it entails the demolition of the whole buildings, rebuiding new buildings and thereafter selling the new units to the Purchasers at a new purchase price with appropriate deductions for the payments previously made S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 by the Purchasers under their Original SPAs with the Applicant. In particular, the Explanatory Statement to the Proposed Scheme stipulates thus: “…3.0 Proposed Scheme Objective and Rationale 3.3 The Proposed Scheme is aimed at essentially redeveloping the Project Land by demolishing all existing twenty one (21) blocks in SiberTel and building new apartments on the Project Land be given the opportunity to participate in the new development and enable the Opt In Purchasers to purchase new units build therein by way of setting off SPA Price against the new unit price.” “…4.0 The Proposed Scheme Salient Features and Implementation of the Explanatory Statement 4.1 The Proposed Scheme shall be subject to the following conditions precedent been met within eighteen (18) months from the date of Court Convened Meeting: (iii) The completion of the transfer of the Project Land to Rising Charm from BESB;” [emphasis added] [84] However, it must be highlighted that what the Applicant owes to the Purchasers are the Annual License Fee which was a guaranteed sum equivalent to 10% of the purchase price between the Applicant and the Purchasers where the Purchasers would be paid once every 3 months for a period of 10 years after the hostel units have been completed. [85] Given that the Annual License Fee started to be payable from 2002 and the Applicant had defaulted since 2005/2006, the total Annual License Fee due to each of the Purchaser at the time the Applicant S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 was ordered to be wound up on 22.9.2011 i.e. a span of 6 years, would easily exceed RM 12,000.00. Yet for the “opt-out” Purchasers, not only would their claims be extinguished under the Proposed Scheme, they would also lose their units to the White Knight. [86] In truth, the effect of the Proposed Scheme as stated above is to permit the White Knight to compel the Purchasers to surrender their property rights in their units to the White Knight and to relinquish their rights to compel the Applicant to procure the strata titles to the units to be issued to them under the Original SPAs and to also relinquish all their claims against the Applicant in respect of the outstanding Annual License Fee due to them. [87] For those Purchasers who are opposing the Proposed Scheme, the Court in granting the sanction will in effect be compelling them to decide either to “opt in” (if only to avoid the consequences of opting out) - which means that they will have to give up their property interests in their units and pay a much higher sum to acquire a new property (between RM250,000.00 to RM400,000.00 per unit) with no assurance that the new units would continue to be maintained and the price of their units not deteriorating after the implementation of the Proposed Scheme – or to “opt out” – which means that the Purchasers will be compelled to sell their units for a price between RM 9,200.00 to RM 12,000.00 only and for their claims against the Applicant for the Annual License Fee to be discharged. [88] As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Interveners, what are due from the Applicant to the Purchasers are the Annual License S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 Fee. Yet, under the Proposed Scheme, what is taken into account has no nexus to the outstanding Annual License Fee but the purchase price of the units under the Original SPAs for those who choose to “opt in” and for those who “opt-out”, the sums between RM 9,200 to RM 12,000 which do not reflect the value of Annual License Fee duly owed by the Applicant to the Purchasers. [89] As far as I know, in our country there are no existing legislations allowing for an en bloc process involving the sale of a block of units where most residents (usually more than 80%) have collectively agreed to sell to a buyer, typically a property developer, who in turn would demolish the entire block for re-development. If this Court were to sanction the Proposed Scheme, this will mean that the scheme of arrangement which is enacted primarily for the purpose of enabling a company facing financial distress to restructure its debt obligations, reschedule payments, or seek debt forgiveness, with the consent of the affected creditors, can now be used as a mean to achieve an en bloc process in Malaysia. [90] That the Purchasers have all acquired a property interest in their respective units can no longer be challenged. The beneficial interests in the units passed upon full payment of the purchase price. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Yeong Ah Chee v Leong Chong Hai & Anor and other appeals [1994] 2 MLJ 614 as follows: “It is an old and well-settled rule of equity that under a valid contract for the sale of land, the beneficial ownership of the land passes to the purchaser who becomes the equitable owner, the vendor having a right to the purchase money for S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 which he has a lien on the land. Please see Lysaght v Edwards and this case was cited with approval very often in our courts, eg by the Federal Court in Inter-Continental Mining Co Sdn Bhd v Societe des Etains Bayas Tudjuh and Temenggung Securities Ltd & Anor v Regisrtrar of Titles,Johore & Ors. When the full purchase price is paid, the vendor becomes a bare trustee, ie. unqualified trustee for the purchaser. It is also of salutary effect to remind ourselves of the fact that rules of equity apply to this country by the Civil Law Act 1956 and of the observation of Lord Russel of Killowen in Oh Hiam & Ors v Tham Kong that ‘the Torrens system is designed to provide simplicity and certitude in transfer of land which is amply achieved without depriving equity of the ability to exercise its jurisdiction in personam on grounds of conscience’.” [emphasis added] [91] This is further supported by the decision in Federal Court He-Con Sdn. Bhd. v Bulyah bt Ishak & Anor (as administrators for the estate of Nor Zainir bin Rahmat, the deceased) and another appeal [2020] 4 ML J 662 as follows: “That Samuel Naik’s case also decided that once the vendor had received full payment of the purchase price from the purchaser, the vendor becomes a bare trustee. And in that legal capacity, the vendor was not permitted in law to sell or transfer the land to new purchasers. Any subsequent conveyance of the same property to new purchasers would thus be void as the vendor, by then being a bare trustee, did not have the requisite capacity to enter into such agreement. It goes without saying that creating a charge over such property would be aimed by the same incapacity. In para 77, the apex court in Samuel Naik held that the failure on the part of the original S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 purchaser to lodge a caveat timeously did not in any way negate or defeat its equitable right, title or interest in the property under scrutiny.” [emphasis added] [92] Therefore, I agree with learned counsel for the Interveners that neither the Applicant nor the White Knight has any rights to interfere with the Purchasers’ proprietary rights through the Proposed Scheme or otherwise which if sanction is given by this Court, will effectively deprive the Purchasers of their property rights to the units in contravention of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution which stipulates thus: “13 Rights to Property (1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law. (2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.” [See also: Mollie Ong Siew Choo @ Mrs Chong Kim Choy & Ors v NCT United Development Sdn. Bhd. [2023] MLJU 1209]. [93] Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is my judgment that the Proposed Scheme is not one that ‘an intelligent and honest man, a member of the class concerned and acting in respect of his interest, might reasonably approve’ and that the Scheme cannot be considered to be “fair and equitable” in the circumstances of this case. S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 Conclusion [94] By reason of the aforesaid, the Originating Summons in Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs. Dated the 12th day of December 2023 ONG CHEE KWAN Judge of the High Court of Malaya High Court of Kuala Lumpur, NCC2 Counsel: 1. Mr. Gary Ng Cheng Yip for Plaintiff Messrs. Dennis Nik & Wong (Kuala Lumpur) 2. Mr. Davey Wan Guan Hui together with Ms. Tsu Jean Yinn for 1st group of Interveners Messrs. Caitlen, Nicholas Cheoh & Partners (Petaling Jaya) 3. Ms. Nadia Ashefa binti Zuhairi for 2nd group of Interveners Messrs. Akmal Shamsul Kahar & Co. (Kuala Lumpur) 4. Mr. P Rajendran together with Mr. Loganathan P. L. Suppiah for 3rd group of Interveners Messrs. P. L. Suppiah & Co.) (Kuala Lumpur) S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 Case Reference: 1. Ganda Setia Cemerlang Sdn. Bhd. & Anor v Maika Holdings Bhd (In Liquidation) [2017] 6 MLJ 661 2. Francis a/l Augustine Pereira v Dataran Mantin Sdn. Bhd. & Ors and other appeals [2014] 6 MLJ 56 3. Jin Lin Wood Industries Sdn. Bhd. & Ors v Mulpha International Bhd No. 2 [2005] 7 CLJ 208 4. Capital Dynasty Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Chiang Bing & Ors [2009] 8 MLJ 841 5. In Re Sateras Resources (Malaysia) Bhd [2005] 6 CLJ 194 6. UDL Argos Holdings Ltd [2002] 1 HKC 172 7. Re Telewest Communications plc (No 2), Re [2005] BCC 36 8. Yeong Ah Chee v Leong Chong Hai & Anor and other appeals [1994] 2 MLJ 614 9. Court He-Con Sdn. Bhd. v Bulyah bt Ishak & Anor (as administrators for the estate of Nor Zainir bin Rahmat, the deceased) and another appeal [2020] 4 ML J 662 10. Mollie Ong Siew Choo @ Mrs Chong Kim Choy& Ors v NCT United Development Sdn. Bhd. [2023] MLJU 1209 Legislation Reference: 1. Sections 176(1) and 366 of the Companies Act, 2016 2. UK Companies Act 3. Section 218 of the Companies Act 1965 S/N vWjDPq0Hjky87jVOQ6quQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCC-606-11/2022

PLAINTIF 1. ) P. PONNAMAL A/P PONNIAH 2. ) PREMA A/P ACHU 3. ) DEBORAH ANN RODRIGO 4. ) Y.M.CHE ENGKU MAHIRAH BT ABDULLAH 5. ) GOH CHIANG BENG 6. ) ALEXANDER VINCENT 7. ) GEA BAN THONG 8. ) NG GUAT TIN 9. ) KOH KOCK KEANG 10. ) SUPRAMANIAM A/L S SHANMUGAM11. ) HARITH BIN ABDUL HAMID1 2. ) ISMAT BIN ABDUL RAUF1 3. ) KOH KOK CHONG1 4. ) GEA SEOK ENG1 5. ) THANGAMUTHU A/L KARUPPIAH DEFENDAN 1. ) GOH HWAN HUA 2. ) I-SERVE ONLINE MALL SDN BHD 3. ) BRIGHT MOON VENTURE PLT 4. ) QA SMART PARTNERSHIP PLT 5. ) TRILLION COVE HOLDINGS BERHAD

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Application for striking out – Claim for repayment of sums paid pursuant to subscription agreements and financing agreements – Whether the sums claimed are part of funds seized – Whether the plaintiffs are prohibited from filing the claim – Whether the claim has been sufficiently particularised – Whether action obviously unsustainable – Rules of Court 2012, 018 r 19(1); Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, s54(3)

15/12/2023

YA Puan Adlin Binti Abdul Majid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4b2f6e00-f20e-4552-afea-e6469bab3fc7&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR GUAMAN NO: WA-22NCC-606-11/2022 ANTARA 1. P. PONNAMAL A/P PONNIAH (NO. K/P: 510720-01-5172) 2. PREMA A/P ACHU (NO.K/P: 640524-10-7008) 3. DEBORAH ANN RODRIGO (NO. K/P: 651003-10-7276) 4. Y.M. CHE ENGKU MAHIRAH BT ABDULLAH (NO. K/P: 510313-10-5904) 5. GOH CHIANG BENG (NO. K/P: 640824-08-5103) 6. ALEXANDER VINCENT (NO. K/P: 640515-08-6233) 7. GEA BAN THONG (NO. K/P: 640229-08-5213) 8. NG GUAT TIN (NO. K/P: 650425-18-5770) 15/12/2023 14:33:29 WA-22NCC-606-11/2022 Kand. 78 S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 9. KOH KOCK KEANG (NO. K/P: 590826-10-6219) 10. SUPRAMANIAM A/L S SHANMUGAM (NO. K/P: 580322-08-6171) 11. HARITH BIN ABDUL HAMID (NO. K/P: 641116-01-6267) 12. ISMAT BIN ABDUL RAUF (NO. K/P: 580419-06-5203) 13. KOH KOK CHONG (NO. K/P: 621030-10-6669) 14. GEA SEOK ENG (NO. K/P : 490628-08-5260) 15. THANGAMUTHU A/L KARUPPIAH (NO. K/P : 570802-10-6259) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. GOH HWAN HUA (NO. K/P: 660901-01-5175) 2. I-SERVE ONLINE MALL SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT : 1096985-X) S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 3. BRIGHT MOON VENTURE PLT (NO PENDAFTARAN: LLP0022149-LGN) 4. QA SMART PARTNERSHIP PLT (NO PENDAFTARAN: LLP0020886-LGN) 5. TRILLION COVE HOLDINGS BERHAD (NO SYARIKAT: 1386271-T) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT A. Introduction [1] The defendants filed applications to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim against them (“Striking Out Applications”). The court dismissed the Striking Out Applications, for the reasons set out below. B. Background Facts [2] The 1st to 15th plaintiffs are investors. Their claims are for repayment of sums they had paid under the following agreements: a. Subscription agreements between the 1st to 4th plaintiffs and the 5th defendant (“SAs”) i. The 1st to 4th plaintiffs claimed they had paid subscription sums under the SAs, and in return, the 5th defendant had agreed to pay redemption S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 sums to them on a monthly basis. The redemption sums were initially paid, but ceased to be paid from November 2021. ii. The 1st to 4th plaintiffs terminated the SAs, and are seeking repayment of the subscription sums and the monthly redemption sums. b. Partner’s financing agreements between the 5th to 9th plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant (“5th to 9th Plaintiffs’ PFAs”) i. The 5th to 9th plaintiffs claimed they provided financing sums to the 3rd defendant. Returns were to be paid to them on a monthly basis. The monthly financing returns were initially paid, but ceased to be paid from November 2021. ii. They were also informed that the 5th to 9th Plaintiffs’ PFAs had been novated to the 4th defendant, but they were not given a copy of the novated agreements. iii. The 5th to 9th plaintiffs terminated the 5th to 9th Plaintiffs’ PFAs, and are seeking repayment of the financing sums and the monthly financing returns. S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 c. Partner’s financing agreements between the 10th to 15th plaintiffs and the 4th defendant (“10th to 15th Plaintiffs’ PFAs”) i. The 10th to 15th plaintiffs claimed they provided financing sums to the 4th defendant. Returns were to be paid on a monthly basis. The monthly financing returns were initially paid to the 10th to 15th plaintiffs, but ceased to be paid from November 2021. ii. The 10th to 15th plaintiffs terminated the 10th to 15th Plaintiffs’ PFAs, and are seeking repayment of the financing sums and the monthly financing returns. [3] The plaintiffs claimed that payments they made to the 3rd to 5th defendants pursuant to the SAs, the 4th to 9th Plaintiffs’ PFAs and the 10th to 15th Plaintiffs’ PFAs (collectively, the “Agreements”) were for the purpose of the 1st and 2nd defendants. They alleged that the 1st and 2nd defendants are the ultimate beneficiary and controlling minds behind the investments and payments they had made to the 3rd to 5th defendants. [4] The defendants denied these allegations. Their case is that the Agreements ought to be construed within the four corners of the documents, and that factors outside the scope of the Agreements must be disregarded. S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [5] Further, they contend that the monies claimed in this suit are part of monies seized pursuant to orders made by the Public Prosecutor under section 50(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (“AMLATFA”), and as such, under section 54(3) of AMLATFA, the plaintiffs are prohibited from the commencing this action. C. The Striking Out Applications [6] The defendants filed the Striking Out Applications pursuant to order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”). [7] The main grounds relied on by the defendants to support the Striking Out Applications are as follows: a. The plaintiffs are statutorily barred from filing this action, as the monies claimed are part of monies seized under AMLATFA; b. The 1st and 2nd defendants are not privy and are not parties to the Agreements, which were entered into by the plaintiffs with the 3rd to 5th defendants; and c. The plaintiffs’ claims are not sufficiently particularised, so as to give rise to a cause of action against the defendants. S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 D. Considerations and Findings [8] The court considered the grounds relied on by the defendants in the Striking Out Applications. Ground 1: The plaintiffs are statutorily barred from filing this action [9] It is not in dispute that: a. On 11 November 2021, Bank Negara Malaysia froze the bank accounts of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants (“Freezing Orders”); b. On 28 February 2022, seizure orders under section 50(1) of AMLATFA were made on the bank accounts of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants (“Seizure Orders”); c. This action was filed on 21 July 2022 while the Seizure Orders were in force; and d. The plaintiffs were aware that the Seizure Orders were in force at the time this action was filed. [10] The defendants contend that as the monies claimed are part of Seizure Orders, section 54(3) of AMLATFA prohibits the plaintiffs from instituting this action against the defendants, without the consent of the Public Prosecutor. S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [11] Section 54(3) of AMLATFA reads: “(3) For so long as a seizure of any property under this Act remains in force, no action, suit or other proceedings of a civil nature shall be instituted, or if it is pending immediately before such seizure, be maintained or continued in any court or before any other authority in respect of the property which has been so seized, and no attachment, execution or other similar process shall be commenced, or if any such process is pending immediately before such seizure, be maintained or continued, in respect of such property on account of any claim, judgement or decree, regardless whether such claim was made, or such judgement or decree was given, before or after such seizure was effected, except at the instance of the Federal Government or the Government of a State, or at the instance of a local authority or other statutory authority, or except with the prior consent in writing of the Public Prosecutor.” (emphasis added) [12] The section prohibits the institution of a civil action, suit or proceedings, in respect of properties that have been seized under AMLAFTA. [13] In arguing that this action cannot be filed without the prior consent in writing of the Public Prosecutor, the defendants relied on the Court of Appeal case of Lau Yong Ying v The Bank of Punjab & Ors and other appeals [2018] 4 MLJ 88, and specifically the following paragraph of the judgment: S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 “[46] The JID was obtained after the issuance of the notice of seizure. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the AMLATFA any dealing subsequent to the notice of seizure is a nullity and void. The learned JC in his judgment held that where a JID can be proved to be null and void on the grounds of illegality or jurisdictional error it has to be set aside ex debitio justitiae.” (emphasis added) [14] It is the defendants’ argument that although Lau Yong Ying (supra) involved a judgment in default which is of a monetary nature, the Court of Appeal nonetheless found the judgment in default to be irregular, having been obtained after a seizure order was in force over the property that is the subject matter of the judgment in default. [15] However, what the defendants appeared to have neglected to consider is that the judgment in default related directly to the seized property, as it was a claim to recover the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the property. Once the judgment in default was obtained, steps were taken to enforce the judgment by way of a writ of seizure and sale on the property. Thus, the claim in Lau Yong Ying (supra) is a claim in respect of a property that had been seized, and the prohibition in section 54(3) of AMLATFA would be applicable. [16] I am of the view that the same cannot be said for this present case. The plaintiffs are claiming the return of monies they had paid under the Agreements, and returns due to them pursuant to these Agreements. From documents available before this court, it is not evident that the S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 plaintiffs’ claims relate to monies in the bank accounts of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants that are subject to the Seizure Orders. [17] The application of section 54(3) of AMLATFA was examined in Dato' Zahari Bin Sulaiman v Genneva Sdn Bhd [2010] MLJU 1706, a case I found instructive. The case concerns the sale of used gold coins by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant failed to make full payment for the purchase of the coins and the plaintiff claimed the remainder of the purchase price. However, the defendant’s monies in several bank accounts were seized under section 50(1) of AMLATFA, and the defendant filed an application to strike out the plaintiff’s claim, arguing that section 54(3) of AMLATFA is an absolute bar to the commencement of any civil action, suit or other proceedings whether it relates directly or indirectly to the property which has been seized under the AMLATFA. The plaintiff in turn filed an application for summary judgment against the defendant. [18] The court dismissed the striking out application and allowed the summary judgment application, holding as follows: “Section 54, it is to be observed, is headed "Dealing with property after seizure to be void." It is obvious from this heading, and from the contents of the Section, that the reference to action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature has to be related to the property seized, in our case the numerous banking accounts of the various Banks seized. Section 54(3) cannot be read the way the Defendant wants it to be read, for to do so will interfere with the general fundamental right of a citizen to resort to court process and access to justice for the determination of S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 his dispute. See e.g. Kekatong Sdn Bhd v Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd [2003] 4 AMR 384 (Court of Appeal) for an express recognition of access to justice as a fundamental right. Such an outcome cannot be made dependent merely as an incidental interpretation of this statutory provision. If it is to be excluded, it will require clearer words that those appearing in Section 54(3). Such a reading of the statutory provision will be in keeping with the common law principle of statutory interpretation that requires courts to interpret statutes so as not to interfere with vested rights, unless the statute clearly states so. It will also be in line with Section 17A of our Interpretation Act which requires courts to adopt a purposive interpretation and adopt an interpretation that will promote the purposes and objects of the statute rather than the reverse. Therefore, with all respect due, the Defendant's argument is untenable. Section 54(3), as presently worded, cannot be reasonably interpreted as imposing a general restraining order on all suits, actions or proceedings as against all litigants or potential litigants, and irrespective of the properties seized. To read this provision as imposing a kind of restraining order on legal process generally will, in my view, fall foul of Section 17A of the Interpretation Act.” (emphasis added) [19] Dato' Zahari Bin Sulaiman (supra) was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Tio Jit Hong & Ors [2020] MLJU 175. S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [20] Thus, the law as it stands is clear. Under section 54(3) of AMLATFA, only a claim in respect of a property subject to a seizure order under AMLATFA would be prohibited from being commenced without the consent of the Public Prosecutor. There is no absolute prohibition against an action being commenced against a company whose property is subject to a seizure order. [21] In the present case, the plaintiffs’ claims are for repayment of monies they had paid and returns due to them under the Agreements. I am unable to agree with the defendants’ argument that the target of the claim is the funds in the accounts that are subject to the Seizure Orders. [22] The cases of the parties as pleaded and documentary evidence before this court at this stage of the proceedings are insufficient for the court to make a conclusive determination that these monies do in fact form part of the accounts of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants, which are subject to the Seizure Orders. A determination can only be made at the full trial of this action, taking into account the movements of the monies paid by the plaintiffs under the Agreements. [23] As such, the court finds that this is not a plain and obvious case for the court to strike out the plaintiffs’ claims on the basis of the statutory prohibition under section 54(3) of AMLATFA. S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Ground 2: The 1st and 2nd defendants are not privy and are not parties to the Agreements [24] It is not in dispute that the 1st and 2nd defendants are not parties to the Agreements. Thus, the 1st and 2nd defendants argued that they cannot be subjected to liabilities arising from these Agreements. [25] The court considered the plaintiffs’ allegations in the statement of claim, that they were notices, announcements and online teleconferences organised by and/or under the instructions of the 1st and 2nd defendants, on the plaintiffs’ investments in the 3rd to 5th defendants. [26] The plaintiffs also pleaded that the 1st defendant had amongst others: a. addressed the plaintiffs personally on their investments in the 3rd to 5th defendants, either in his personal capacity or as a representative of the 2nd defendant; and b. made representations and statements on issues faced by the 2nd defendant, and their impact on the plaintiffs’ returns, pursuant to the Agreements. [27] The court finds the allegations raised in the statement of claim warrant further consideration. The court also notes that apart from the 1st and 2nd defendants arguing that the Agreements must be read within the four corners of their documents and that extrinsic evidence cannot be brought in to determine liability under these Agreements, the allegations have not been sufficiently rebutted. S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [28] With the allegations raised, the true nature of the transactions between the plaintiffs and the 3rd to 5th defendants, and the 1st and 2nd defendants’ roles in these transactions (if any at all), can only be determined at a full trial of this action. It is therefore my considered finding that this is not a plain and obvious case for the court to exercise its power to summarily strike out this action under order 18 rule 19(1) of the ROC. Ground 3: The plaintiffs’ claims are not sufficiently particularised [29] The plaintiffs’ case is that notwithstanding the contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the 3rd to 5th defendants, it is the 1st and 2nd defendants that are the ultimate beneficiary and controlling minds behind the investments the plaintiffs had made into the 3rd to 5th defendants. [30] Thus, the plaintiffs allege that: a. The 2nd to 5th defendants function as a single economic unit; b. The 3rd to 5th defendants are agents of the 1st and/or 2nd defendants; c. The 1st and/or 2nd defendants are trustees of the 3rd to 5th defendants; and d. The 1st and/or 2nd defendants are under a duty to the plaintiffs to ensure monies invested by the plaintiffs were S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 used accordingly and appropriately to enable the plaintiffs to obtain their returns; and e. The 1st and/or 2nd defendants have conspired to perpetrate fraud upon the plaintiffs. [31] I am unable to agree with the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ case, as pleaded, is not sufficiently particularised and does not show any cause of action against the defendants. The causes of action arise from breaches allegedly committed by the 3rd to 5th defendants in failing to repay the sums paid by the plaintiffs under the Agreements, and well as to pay the plaintiffs’ returns as they fell due pursuant to these Agreements. [32] The issues to be determined by this court, including whether the Agreements were breached as alleged and whether the 1st and/or 2nd defendants are liable for the alleged breaches, would not be able to be determined merely by an assessment of documentary evidence before this court. [33] The defendants further argued that the non-payment of sums claimed by the plaintiffs arises as a result of supervening events, namely the Freezing Order and the Seizure Orders. Whether this is in fact the case, and whether the defendants had perpetrated fraud against the plaintiffs by not paying the sums allegedly due, can only be determined at the full trial of this action. S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [34] I am in this regard guided by the following oft-quoted passage of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36: “The principles upon which the court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O 18 r 19(1) of the RHC are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule (per Lindley MR in Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark Ltd 7, and this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it 'obviously unsustainable' (see AG of Duchy of Lancaster v L & NW Rly Co 8) ... The court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious or that the defences raised are not arguable. … This court as well as the court below are not concerned at this stage with the respective merits of the claims. But what we have to consider is whether the counterclaim discloses some cause of action and, likewise, whether the defence to counterclaim raises a reasonable defence. It has been said that so long as the pleadings disclose some cause 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 (see Moore v Lawson 10 and Wenlock v Moloney & Ors 9).” (emphasis added) S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [35] I find that the statement of claim as it stands does disclose a cause of action and raises questions that are fit to be decided after a full trial of this action. E. Decision [36] With the findings as set out, the court dismissed the Striking Out Applications, with costs. Dated 13 December 2023 - sgd - ADLIN ABDUL MAJID Judge High Court of Malaya Commercial Division (NCC6) Kuala Lumpur Counsel: Plaintiffs : Singh) of Messrs. Raj & Sach 1st defendant : David Mathews (together with Tina Francis) of Messrs. Mathews Hun Lachimanan 2nd and 5th defendants : Chetan Jethwani (together with Ava Geh) of Messrs. Chetan Jethwani & Company 3rd and 4th defendants : Varunnath Viswanathan of Messrs. KP Lu & Tan Rajesvaran Nagarajan (together with Amanda Sonia Mathew and Sachpreetraj S/N AG4vSw7yUkWv6uZGm6s/xw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCvC-124-09/2022

PLAINTIF 1. ) KALITHASAN PAUL a/l IGNATIUS PAUL 2. ) BANUMATHY a/p SUBRAMANIAM DEFENDAN 1. ) YEE PEI SZE 2. ) LOW SIEW YOCK

Full trial – claim by the Plaintiffs as purchasers under a Sale and Purchase Agreement for specific performance against two Defendants as vendors.The 1st Defendant does not enter appearance but appears in Court physically and informs that not interested in defending proceedings.The 2nd Defendant defends proceedings and contends that the signature on the Sale and Purchase Agreement is forged. Government chemist produced and testified that the 2nd Defendant’s signature is forged. The Court finds DW2 and DW3 as credible witnesses and allows the 2nd Defendant’s counterclaim.The Plaintiffs’ claim for specific performance is dismissed – the Sale and Purchase Agreement declared null and void. The 1st Defendant ordered to refund the Plaintiffs all deposits paid and to further pay agreed liquidated sum.

15/12/2023

YA Dato' Anand Ponnudurai

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=13e0e83e-8aac-4498-894a-cd8d2179e260&Inline=true

15/12/2023 11:45:34 PA-22NCvC-124-09/2022 Kand. 57 S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N PujgE6yKmESJSs2NIXniYA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA—22NCvC—12I—09/2022 Kand. 57 ,5/12,2012 ,1 LE :4 DALAM NIAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI DALAM NEGERI PULAU ANG GUAMAN SIVIL no PA-zzucvc-Iuonlzuzz ANTARA 1. KALIYNASAN PAUL A/L IGNATIUS PAUL (Nu. KIP: 590331427-5237] 2. BANUMATHV AIP SUBRAMANIAM [No. KIP: na11un.5om PLAINYIF-PLAINYIF DAN 1. VEE PEV SZE [No.Kl . nnsuu-10-sans] 2. LOW SIEW vocx [No. KIP: 57051340-GTVE] DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS or JUDGMENT Backgrounds Facts [11 The Plamhfis are husband and Mia. Thawrdesnre la purchasea house was [ulfilled when |hey entered m|o a 8a‘: and Purchase Agreemenl sw w.gammzs¢s;2mxm van I at :1 mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be .15.. m van; M nugvuuly mm; mm. VII mum puns! dated 4'" April 2022 (trereinaner reierree to as the “sald SPA") to purchase a hnuse bearing the descriplinn at Pareei No, 175, Tree Residency @ one Residence bearing the Grant No. 152303lL27€, Psiak L276, Let 70656. Mukim 12, Daereh Eai1ID3‘{a.Iugemerwilh the resiaenuai address olNo I8, Lnmng Raieweii 7, Tree Raidency, 11900, Eayan Lepas, Puiau Pinang tor the eorisieeratten oi RM 1.5 rniiiion Thevendurs were the Defendants who ioirrtiy earned the sarrt house whereby the 2"" Deieridant was the mother or the 1“ neierieerit. [2] It is not disputed that the Piaintiws and the 1‘ Defendanlexscuted the said SPA en 4* April 2022 with their signatures witrissett by a soiietor, Teri Huei .ti (PW-1). The 2" Deierrdant was not present at the solicitor‘: omce to execute the said SPA. The 1*‘ Deierroani then hack the Said sPA back with her to procure the 2"" Delendanfs signature and returned the same to PW-I the next day with the sex: agreement seemingly exewled by the 2"“ Detenuent and witnessed ny another snliamr, Mr. Lee Bang sen. [3] The said SPA was Ini|IaHy plaeeo rn Part C at the common auneiee at Doeurnerris (hereinaiter reierred to as “snow but was sueeequeriuy matked as exhitm P-1 triereetter enee the errgiriat was produced. [4] A: per ine rernis oi the said SPA, the Flalnmls euiy pald the deposit o|RM150,n0fl.D0 wnereaner they had apotiett and were epproiree a loan irorri Public Banx aerhae tor the amount of RM! 115 rriittierr. The said surn alRM150,D00 nu was reteesee to the 1' Deierxtnrrt who SIN P|1l§E6yKmESJSi2NIXniVA P-=- 1 -=' H 5 ‘Nuns s.ii.i n-vihnrwiii re as... m mm he nflmheiily MIME flan-vinril VI] nFiuNG WM! Counsul(s): Mr Svmon Murali «mm Messrs. Simon Mun-ah & Co. lPenangj tor the P\amMf. Mr. Md vusal Md. ldris Vrom Messrs, vusuv Fauzlah A Go. (Penang) car the 2" Defandanl cases rmmd to: La] Fee 5. Ana! v Wang Vu vse & ors[2o23} 3 Mu 503 Takako Sakao v Ng Pek Yuen [2010] 1 cu 331 Laglslnflons ufornd lo‘ Cormscts Act 1950, Section 19, 55. sw Pu;gE£yKmESJSs2NlXmVA Pix: 1: m u E‘ um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! % syn P-4§EayKmEsJss2N|x-uvA -wee s.nn n-nhnrwm be used e mm s. nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm wa nfluNG Wm PUTD0|'\ed 10 500391 the same fov hem!" and behalf 01 the 2'” Defendant [51 Being mu pmpeny, PW-I men Illemplod to emavn consent from the devebpar bul the same Gould nnl he nhlamed as the 2"‘ Defendant revusea to ceny oul me uenseenun. Corvespondenoes ensued whereby il was dear Itual ms 2" Delendarlt contended mu she had nm exawled me sand SPA, her signature was forged and H1a| she had no mention whatsoever In sell the sad house. Tho Plllnllfl Clnlm [51 Due PlaInMls’ua1mIs one ov bveach olcunuau m Ihal Ihey aver mat the 2"" Delendnm nus «sued in honaur me send SPA The Plalnlflls no nelawenl ma wmngim repum-non by Ina 2"’ wemenn but mils! on me ema padormanoe Ind cmms specmc penomnnoe M me sen sun ena compansahon. nu Dmndnms m The 1- Delendant ma not file e stanemenl M defame despite heme sewed me statement :21 clann. sne however amended cum on me firsl day of ma! and confirmed receipt oi the eeuse papers but mlunnsd me coun that the house belonged to her and that she Intended to mowed wrm me sale. She runnev informed me Courllhat she had nu mention |o delend me dam and that she did not wanna leslrfy and Ihereallar lell the courtroom. nmem [a] The 2"’ Deiendani on me diner nand Ironi ine iinie sne disccveled men inere was a Sale and Purchase Agreement pulparledly signed by ner as eariy as May 2022 when me developer eoniacxed her! wnsis1en|h/looklbe posiiien iiiai sne never signed inesaid SPA and rier signaiiiie iorged. The 2"“ Deiendani men med her slalemem M deienee and niounied a eeiiniereiaini (or a declaration mat me said SPA is nun and Void due in me icrgery by virtue oi SIc11'on19 omie Conlncts MI 195a. The min: in In on dud [9] Panic: agree inei ine eoie issue is be decided is wneiner ine 2~= Deiendanrs eignaiiire wee idiged on me said SPA In ii-iis regard, ii I5 agreed inai ii ii was sii «urged, than me 2"“ ueiendem IS N71 bound by ine sanie. on me mnirary, ii idigery ii. nai woven. me Piainiine snniiid inen simeed in in claim Gonlonliolillhlulflla a The 1" Deieridaiifs election not 10 gm [10] As seen above, me 1= Dzlendanl nas not med any pleadings nor iesimed and seems disinceresied in defending me Plalnlifls‘ eieini. [11] As such. the Plainlfls ciaim that all evidence led by me P 975 is assumed In be (me and reiies on me Federai coim case of Tuiuikn sin PI1l§E6yKmESJSi2NIXniVA we 4 in n 5‘ we s.n.i nnvihnrwm be in... M mm i.. nflmnaiily MVMS dun-mm VI] eFiuNG WM! % [72] H4] sin PI1l§E6yKmESJSs2NIXniVA -non s.n.i rn-vihnrwm be used M mm o. nflmnnflly sun. m.n.n VI] .nnne Wm! Slkao v Ng Pok vim. [2010] 1 cu ui. I agree and as such all me P|Im|Ms' evidence in relanon |c the 1= neionoani is to be amepled as acsunaie and Imchaflenged in this regard, the Plalnlflfs Dunlend that me 1= Defendant nsd represeniea In PW-1 and PW-2 that the 2"“ Defendant had executed me said SPA. in my view‘ whilst me Piainlifls‘ evioenoe Visi3—I/is me 15* Defendant may be cunstrued as no| coriresled, ine same cannot be said in relation to me 2~= Dalandanr. sinoe ma 2w Dafendanl nas issmso and deflended the P\ainlilfs'cIaim,£|1e evidence in relatinn In the 2" Delsridanl has to be evaiuated and the election of the I‘ Delendant nm In iasmy nas nu bearing visa?—vis me 2"“ Deienaanx. 3 Has the execution or he sane and Pumhaso Agreeineni by both Defendants been pnwen? [13] Having heard me lasumony Mme Pinniins as won a: PW-I an»: in llghl M in non-noniesi by me 1" Deflendnm, more can be no doubt man in: em SPA was indaed oxocmoo by «no Fiainims and ms vi Defandant as wlmassed by PW-1. II is 71015 di!P\l1£d 981:1 mat the 1“ Defendant did subssquanlly return «no saio SPA io PW—1 which indicated «nan «no 2"-= Doiendani nau signed in me msaneo oianmnor solmilor by me name oi Mr. Lee Bang ssn Mr Lee Bang San oni rml testify and it is cmrimun ground between all parties that no cannot be convacled and has since been struck off me Roiis as an Advocate and Solicitor meson: [15] me Plaintiffs suoinii Ihal ine zw Defendant nae rim adduced evidence la erieiienge irie euinenilcny oi Mr Lee serig saris sionaiure However, in my view bearing in inai Mr. Lee aerip sen is iinedniacienie, I do not see how lire 2"-1 neiendani is ahle io cneiienge ine suineriiiciry oi riis signeiiire On one score, ieamed counsel ier ine 2"“ Dedendirll nas drawn ilie Caurfs eneniion io ine evidence in several diner cases sgains| Mr. Lee Beng Sen and suggesis inei lie is someone wn rwalved In . nuirioeroidisnonesi oraciiees. lam eenainiy noi prepared in make any adverse inierenee againstMr Lee Beflg San allhls eiage wiiriounieving eriyinirig rnore [1 5] What is ceruin iriougn is man noi a single soul had wiinessed me 2-"! Delendeni execmrng me said SPA As Such, Ihis inen requires an exerriineiion oflhe evidenoe oi DW—1 end well as ainerwiiriesses iri inis regard, DW-I nas lesiiiied in no iinoemeiri ierrris that srie did rim exscule ine sabd SPA and was snocked when sne received the leuier ironi me inland Revenue Board (LHDN) The evidence will reveal that she lmiriediaieiy lock eeiidri and came to Penang fmm Kuala Lumpnr I0 deal with me pmpieni whereby srie wenl In me Bank. developer, etc. induding iriaidng a police repdri on 27' May 2022. The 2"‘ Deiendenieleo produced nerdaugnieres DW-2 Wholfillfied Ihat iier miner was deed in me muse in Klairig on 4' and 5'" May 2022. [17] In Iddlhan, inc 2"‘ neiendani nad iorwarded a navy Mine said SPA lo the Gnvemmanl elieniiei end DW-3, ine Guvammenl cneniisi nad iesmied inai in rier opinion, me sigieiures on me said SPA were no: muse oiine 2"‘ neieridani as mere were ergnmceni dillerences in me cnineee nendwriiing cneruineiisiii: SIN PuigE£yKmESJSi2NlXnlVA are I av 11 5 -we s.ii.i In-vlhnrwfll r. in... m mm i.. nflfllnnllly MIME m.i.ir VI] nFluNG Wflxl % [15] H9] ['10] [21] SIN PuigE£yKmESJSi2NlXniVA The Pleinmfs submits and raises the issues tnat DW-2 cannot be considered independent and that there was no specific finding by the Government chemist that there was a Iurgery on my part, I idund both DW—2 and Dw-3 oredibie and Iound no reason to disbeiieve their testimony DW—2 was rinn tnat her mother was in Kiiaie Lunipiir on 4"‘ and 5" April 2022 which were Ine only two possible dates tnattne said SPA could have been signed by her In addition. having odnsideied ail matters and the contemporaneous dawrnents as well as the course 01 conduct undertaken by the 2"’ oeiendant immediately iipon disooveiy ortne said SM I find me 2-! beieiidants evidaiiee credible. I see no merit in the iaieintnrs oonlemion that the 2"“ Deiendsnfs evidence is iinretiabte In ttiis regard, the Pieiiitme rerer to the evidence that there was a Suhsequenl sate and Purchase Agreement between the 1" and 2-= ueiendants on June 2n22 es weii as the tea that the 1‘ Deiendants husband had assIs|ed tier iii Feriang eIc.. and submit that this throws doubt on the 2' Iaeiendaiirs version and that in reality. this was I case 0! the 2" neiendant tieving signed tne Sam SPA bu] subseqiienuy tiying to renege an it. The 2"‘ Defendanttias provided an explanahun on the above matters tor which I accept and find ner version reasonable and credible. I see no reason Ior her to have undsflakan me cnume oi Icllon she undertook itsne had indeed signed the said SPA. Having mnzitdered the evidence as a whole, I find on a baianoe oi probabilities that the 2" Deiendent did not execute the said SPA. ms is aiso based on the op on ontie expert ctiernist which I eooept [fill me signature in vaauoiu -nae s.n.i nnrihnrwiii be in... M my me nflginniily MIME dun-rinril VII aFIuNG wnxi the satd SPA was not tnnse of the 2"‘ Defendant Nlhnugn DW-3 dtd not conclude lhat the 2"‘ Defendant! stgnslurs was forged, tn my view, the ihetrrtahte eonetusian (mm her expert ownten is that the stgnature was hat that at the 2'” Defendant must be that the 2'-6 nerandants stgnatuns was iarged I would go as tar as to venture to state that it was H’! 1‘ Defendant who is the mosl Itkely person to have verges the mothers stgnatdre She was the my one who stood to benefit and We IS clear when she pocketed the anttre depcstl at RM150,0D0.00. [22] Ftnally. on the tssue of torgery, teamed counsel for the Platrttifts submit that the allegation otturgery is a coneacted afterthought and thatthts ts a case otdisguised taandwrittrtg. wtttt respect, 1 am unabte to accept the Plaimflfs‘ curttentmn and It IS mare speculatmn [23] In the upshot, I am more than persuaded by the etrtdenoe adduced that me 2"“ Delendant did nut execute the said SPA. As such. 1 am oohstratned to dtsrutss the Ptamttrfs‘ clatm tar specific pertonnanee at the satd SPA as Xhts Court should not enlorce an agreement that was procuved by way at fraud. [See the case at Lli F» at Ann v Wong Vu V» at ors [2023] 3 MLJ 50:] [241 tttmavar, that ts not the and mute matter. The Ptemtms submilm Ihe ettetnattve that N I find that the 2" uatandartt am not execute the semi SPA and thus exonerate the 2'‘ Defendant. me I" Defendant shoutd rernaht Mama and that the Court may tlhhle the Ommbtls pays! to grunt a tenet that s tuslznd lair srn Pu‘gE£yKmESJSi2NIXntVA Pale I at at 5 we s.n.t n-rthnrwm be vied ta mm In: nnmnnfily enn. dun-mm ha .nune Wm! [251 Havlng corrslaereu ell mailers, it does sppeer that me I" nelerrrlerrl re mo eulprll in me arl|iru rrurrsecllarr. As uplned earlrer, rr ls very Vlkoly she lolged me malbefs slgrrelurs and ins rral dlspuied that she solely kmk medepnsll money elRMl5o,ooo oo. Bearing in mlnd msl l have found Ihal the 2"“ Defendant 5 slgnalura was forged, this Is an epnruvnale case to allow me 2'-= nelenaanrs courrlercleim and on daclarelha sald SPA null and vol'd In my vlew, havlng received me depnsil of RM1§(],D00.00 ll rs mrlalnly appropriate relying on Secflon es owl. carrnaals Act 1|I5D1ar |he1‘ Delandarll lo reslure and In repay me deposll sum of RM150,U00 00. [26] Further, me Flarnlrll has drawn the Coun‘s atlenllan le me said SPA ln pamcular clause 17 lhefelrl wmcrr sllpulales mat in me evenl cl aelaull by me vendor, or lallure lo perlurm the purcrrase, the verraor ls |o relurra all rrrenles pale wllrloul inleresl asjvrs as In pay me purchaser a runner sum :71 RMl5o.uoo no as agreed llquldaled damages Eearlng ln mlna lrre lael mal mere rras indeed been a default by lfle1" Delermam as a vendor as well as one eorrducl more I“ Delendarlz as highhghted above. llrls In my vlew ls an epprupnale case as make such an order. [211 As such. are Calm malras llre lelluwrrrg orders; a. Trlal me said SPA duled 4“ Apnl 2022 ls hereby declared null and worn, a. The ' Delenaanl relunns me Plalnlifls me sum of RMVSFLGDD no belng me aeposn new by ma Plalnlms; SIN PulgE£y1(mESJSs2NIXnlVA me! at n 5 we saw I-vlhnrwm be used m van; me nflglnnllly mums dun-mm wa aFluNG wml % srn PurgEay1<nrEsJss2NIxrnvA ‘Nuns sum nnnhnrwm .. used m yam me nnmrrnuly mws dun-mm vra mum puns! c Trre 1- Daierrnanx pays lhe Wainhfis a iurlher sum or RMI5o.ooo.ou being me agreed Irqurdaced sum payable Dwsuanl to Clause 17 and C\ause 15 M are sard SPA read cugetnerwrm paragrapn 4 M the second Smedule |o the Sam SPA [281 As rm oases, both pames are seeking costs wilh the 2"“ Defendant submining manney have spent an amount In excess 01 RMa,ooo.oo ra oblam PW-3'5 ram: and to secure her altendance In Court In my yraw, bearing In rrrrna me [acts of ms I:ase.wh\Islbmh1he mairrmvs and the 2" Defendant should be enlmad ta oosls, I lhink K would be most ulwst N any order as to costs rs vlsnsd upon mam. This rs especlaw so as may both do not appear to have oornrrrruaa any wrong but ramar, appear to nave been vicums of a scheme aayrsaa by me 1“ Defendant. As such, In my view, an order of 0051: rs mos! aparapnarrs against me 1“ nererraanr whereby I would order the 1- Delendaru «.2 pay me Plamnfls a sum M RM50.UO0.00 as ousrs and to pay me 2"“ Dererraanr cosra of RM55,000.00 both srmjan lo aflocator. Dam 14*“ Dooembar 2023 ANAND Pouuunumu Judge High cm seorgaurwn Pulau Prnang. In: In M u

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-A52NCvC-327-06/2019

PLAINTIF Hong Cin Yee DEFENDAN 1. ) Oristana Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Ho Ka YiPIHAK KETIGALee Siou Keong

sama ada pihak Plaintif adalah pihak yang sepatutnya membawa kes ini memandangkan beliau tidak mempunyai surat kuasa wakil bagi membawa kes ini - sama ada terdapat perjanjian walaupun tidak termeterai antara pihak-pihak- sama ada terdapat misrepresentasi dalam kes ini oleh pihak Defendan Pertama, Kedua dan pihak Ketiga- sama ada isu CCC adalah syarat jelas yang ditetapkan oleh Plaintif tidak sebelum menamatkan perjanjian yang menjumlahkan pada pemulangan wang deposit sewaan hartanah. sama ada pihak ketiga adalah bertanggungan bagi tuntutan Plaintif - sama ada terdapat sumbangan oleh pihak ketiga dalam kes ini.

15/12/2023

Puan Rafiqha Hanim binti Mohd Rosli

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0c19a5ba-711b-4dec-bacd-12fefeebbee5&Inline=true

15/12/2023 18:27:48 BA-A52NCvC-327-06/2019 Kand. 200 S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N uqUZDBtx7E26zRL/uu5Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-22NCVC-118-06/2016

PLAINTIF BA URUS BINA ( M ) SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) JAMIL BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) MUTHANNA BIN JAMIL

Assessment of Damages after full trial. The trial judge having found that the Plaintiff has proven Special Damages on a balance of probabilities, there is nothing more to assess since the Court of Appeal has set aside the order for exemplary damages and the Plaintiff is not pursuing its claim for general damages.

15/12/2023

YA Tuan Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3678f81d-1728-4baf-b423-2e5ce0f09aba&Inline=true

ja-12b-28-07/2019 IN THE MATTER OF THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR DARUL TA’ZIM WRIT NO.: JA-22NCvC-118-06/2016 BETWEEN BA URUS BINA (M) SDN BHD … PLAINTIFF (No. Syarikat: 429253-H) AND 1. JAMIL BIN IBRAHIM (No. K/P: 580403-05-5377) 2. MUTHANNA BIN JAMIL (No. K/P: 880328-05-5549) … DEFENDANTS 15/12/2023 16:13:26 JA-22NCVC-118-06/2016 Kand. 163 S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The Plaintiff filed this application in Enclosure 88 (“Encl 88”) for assessment of damages to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff under an order of this Court dated 31.07.2018, where the trial judge found the Defendants liable to the Plaintiff for negligence. BACKGROUND FACTS [2] The trial judge found for the Plaintiff on 31.07.2018 after a full trial and allowed the Plaintiff’s claim as in the Amended Statement of Claim but ordered damages payable by the Defendants to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar. [3] The Plaintiff prayed for the following orders in it’s Amended Statement of Claim; (i) Defendan membayar kepada Plaintif RM2,337,926.00 iaitu kos tambahan untuk kerja-kerja tanah sebenar yang telah ditanggung oleh Plaintif; (ii) Defendan mengembalikan yuran yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif sebanyak RM351,000.00 untuk kerja-kerja terlebih bayar/yang gagal disiapkan tetapi telah dibayar kepada Defendan; S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (iii) Membayar ganti rugi am yang akan ditaksirkan; (iv) Membayar ganti rugi teladan yang akan ditaksirkan. [4] It is noted that even though evidence was led during the trial to prove the Special Damages claimed by the Plaintiff under paragraph 11(i) of the Amended Statement of Claim, the Court ordered damages claimed in paragraph II (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar. [5] The Defendants appealed against the decision of the High Court after trial. The Court of Appeal (“COA”) on 30.09.2019 affirmed the decision of the High Court on liability but set-aside the order of the High Court on exemplary damages. The COA further ordered assessment of damages claimed by the Plaintiff under paragraph II (i), (ii) and (iii) to be carried out by the Judge. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES BY THIS COURT [6] During the assessment of damages before this Court, the Plaintiff called one (1) witness and the Defendant also called one (1) witness. [7] The Plaintiff’s claim for additional costs incurred amounting to RM2,337,926.00 falls under the category of special damages. [8] For this head of claim, the trial judge made the following findings in his grounds of judgments; S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (49) Oleh yang demikian, kos sebenar kerja tanah yang perlu ditanggung oleh Plaintif adalah sebanyak RM2,462,000.00 iaitu RM2,337,926.00 lebih daripada kos asal yang dikira berdasarkan P2 yang dikira dan dibuat oleh Defendan-Defendan. (50) Mahkamah mendapati Defendan-Defendan telah menyebabkan Plaintif mengalami kerugian apabila mereka melakukan kesilapan dan/atau kecuaian dalam mengira anggaran kerja tanah di dalam P2 sehingga menyebabkan nilai harga kontrak adalah lebih rendah dari yang sepatutnya. (59) Berdasarkan apa yang dinyatakan di atas, mahkamah berpuas hati Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan kesnya di atas kadar kebarangkalian bahawa Plaintif telah mengalami kos tambahan untuk kerja-kerja tanah sebenar yang telah ditanggung oleh Plaintif sebanyak RM2,337.926.00. (69) Setelah meneliti keseluruhan keterangan dalam kes ini, mahkamah telah berpuas hati Plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan tuntutan ini dan telah membenarkannya. [9] Since the learned trial Judge has found that the Special Damages suffered by the Plaintiff is in the sum of RM2,337,926.00 on a balance of probabilities, there is nothing more for me to assess on the issue of quantum of Special Damages. [10] (a) With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for other heads of damages, the COA had set-aside the award of Exemplary Damages claimed under paragraph II (iv) of the Amended statement of Claim. S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (b) With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for General Damages the Plaintiff did not provide any evidence of General Damages nor did it submit on the issue of quantum to be paid under this head. Thus, I did not make any award under this head. (c) That only leaves the quantum of Special Damages to be awarded. However, since the trial Judge had found that the Plaintiff had in fact successfully proven that the Plaintiff had suffered the special damages claimed under paragraph II (i) of the Amended Statement of Claim (see the trial Judge’s findings in paragraph 49, 50 and 59 of his grounds), during the trial of the original action, there is nothing more for me to assess in terms of the quantum to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff under the head of Special Damages. Therefore, I order the Defendants to pay the full sum of RM2,337,926.00 to the Plaintiff. [11] For the reasons aforesaid, I award the Plaintiff Special Damages in the sum of RM2,337,926.00 and costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocator, to be paid by the Defendants. Dated 15 December 2023 …………t.t……………….. Ahmad Murad Bin Abdul Aziz Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: EN ZUL SADDIQIN SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFF: TETUAN MAISHI’AH, JALIDAH & ASSOCIATES COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS: DATO’ HANIF HASSAN SOLICITORS FOR THE DEFENDANTS: TETUAN HANIF HASSAN & CO Cases Referred to: ➢ Legislation Referred to: ➢ Decision Date: 21.03.2023 S/N Hfh4NigXr0u0Iy5c4PCaug **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JA—22m:vc—11a—o6/2016 Kand. 163 ,a,l2 mu m 2 A: IN THE MATTER or me HIGH coum or MALAVA AT JOHOH EAHHU IN THE sun: OF JOHOR DARUL TA'ZIM wan NO.: JA-22NCvC-113-D6/2018 BETWEEN an unus ElNA(M) sun sun PLAINTIFF (No. Syarlkatz A2925:-H) AND I. JAMIL am IEHAHIM (No. K/F: 580401-D5-5377) 2. MUTHANNA am JAMIL (No. K/F: aanzza-as-5519) DEFENDANYS sw HvMNxgxmuu\y5c4Pcau§ Eh -mm Sum -nvhgvwm nausea mvetvK-5mw\ruHl’1m1msnnm'n:nlv1:F\L\NG varw JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] The P\amull med (ms apphcahah uh Enmusure as (‘Encl as") for assessment ac aamages in be pam by the Deveheams |a lhe Plalnhll under an order 0! (ms Court da|ed 31 n7 zma. wheve lhe ma! page mum the Dereneahvs hame |a me P\aInMl lar heghgehce. BACKGROUND FACYS [2] The ma! wage immd lar me F\amul! on 31.07.2018 auer a mu mal and aHawed me F\amIM's mam: as VI’! |he Amended Stammenl nl mam hm ardeved damages payame by me Devenaahns to be assessed by me Depmy Regxshar. [:1 The F\amIM prayed for the veuawmg avders VI’! ms Amended Smemenl ac mam. (T) Delendan membayar kepada Plamhl RM2337326 Du \a\|u kas tamhahan unluk kenarkena Lanah sebenav yang te\ah manggung men F\amm, (M Delendan mengemhahkan yuran yang Ielah chnayar cneh Plalnhl Sebanyak Rmashuuo Du unluk kenarkena terlebxh bayar/yang gage! msapkan |e!apT \e\ah duhayar kepada Delendan‘ 2 5w HvMNTgXn7uu\y5c4Pcau9 an -we SIN]! M... am he used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; nnmmnnl VII .;me VWLIT (mp Membayar garm rug: am yang akan tmakswkan, (xv) Membayar garm rug: \e\adan yang akan duaksnrkan. [4] u s ndred ma| even lhaugh ewdence was red durmg me ma! rd prove me Spec\a\ Damages swarmed by me P\am|\ll under paragraph nu) dc me Amended S|ateme-M or warm‘ me cddn drdered damages swarmed m pavagraph H m (u) rm) and rm) to be assessed by me Depu|y Regrsrrar [5] The Deiendams appemed agamsr |he deersrdn 0! me Hrgn cedrr aner mal The cddrr do Appem (‘com on 30092019 amrmed me decrsrdn dc me Hrgn cdun dn habmty but semasude me erder dc me Hrgn cdun an exemplary damages The COA mrmer drdered assessment or damages swarmed dyme Wamul! under paragraph n (r), (u) and (rm |a be earned am by me Judge ASSESSMENY or DAMAGES av mus COURT [5] Dunng me assessmem dc damages beiore ms Court, |he P\am\|W eaued one (1) vmmess and \he Delendam alse eaued one (1) vmmess [7] The Plamms mam for addmdnal costs mcurred amcmnmg |O RM2r337,B2S.flD !aHs under me category 0! specrax damages. [5] For rhrs head aH:\a\m.|hema|1udge made me vdudwmg vmdmgs m hrs grounds 0! judgments, 2 5w HvMNwgXn7uu\y5c4Pcau9 an -we Sam M... M“ be used m mm we mwvuulv mm; nnmmnnl vn mum Wm my men yang dermluan. kassebeuavkzqa lanahyang perm dmzmqgung nleh Plmnlnladmah sebanyak RM2.4s2 mm on W FlM2.337.92s on wehm danpafla kns asal yang am berdasalkan >2 yang mm dan «mm nleh DeVendan—Delendan (Sn) Mahkamah meudapah DeVendan—Delendan (em menyebabkan mm: mengammn kemgxan apuhfla mereka memkukan kesdapan flan/alau kemamn dalam mengwa anqgaran keua tanah m dmam P2 sehmgga menyebabkan mm havga knnlrak mam Vemh vendah flan yang sepalmnya (59) Berdasalkan spa yang dmyalakan m alas mnhknmnh belpuns hm mnmu Ielnh beI|nyu membukillmn new. a. alas kadav kehavangkzlmn hahawa Hamm lemh mengmamx kns lambahan unluk Kenya Kenya mm seem. yang lebh mlanggung men F\aml\l sehanyak FlM2.33792s on (69) Selelah menehh kesemvuhan kelerangan dalam keg mu mahkamah (em bevpuas mu Fmxnm Iemh beqaya memmmm mm" mndan men memhenavkannya. [9] Since we learned ma! Judge has lound |hat me Special Damages sunerea by me Waxnm Is m |he sum 0! HM2,aa7,s2e.oo en a ba\ance ea pmbabxlmes‘ there Is nemmg move lav me |o assess on me Issue 0! quanhml 0! sperm! Damages. [m] (a) W||h respect to me P\amufFs claim lar omer heads of damages‘ me coA had sen-asme me awavd ea Exemplary Damages maxmed under paragvaph H my on me Amended s|atement ol C\a\m. N HIMNwgXmun\v5c4Pcau9 we Sum M... M“ be used m mm we nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum pm 9% (b) (C) wtth respect to the Ptatnttws etatm hat eenerat Damages the Ptatnhu dtd net pmutde any evidence et eeherat Damages nor an tt suhtntt en the Issue et quantum to he patd undev the head. Thus‘ I dtd not make any award under thts head. Tha| ehty leaves the quantum at spectat Damages |a be awarded. However‘ Smce the that Judge had wound that the Ptatnhu had tn lacl suceesstutty prctven that the Ptathtttt had suheted the speetat damages etatmed under paragraph ll ht oi the Amended statement cl ctatm (see the that Judge's hndtngs tn pavagvaph 49, 50 and 59 et hts grounds). dunng the that tat the or man aetten, lheve ts neththg marelar mete assess tn |evmS at the quantum to he patd by the Detendants to the Ptathttu under the head et Special Damages. Therelare, t Dfflef the Detehdants |a pay the MH stun ctl FIM2,337‘S26 on to the Ptatnhu [11] For the masons ainresatdt I award the Ptatnttu speetat Damages tn the sum al RM2\337»B2s no and costs at FIMID,DOD.DD, sutateet te atteeater, to be patd by the Detehdants. Dated ts December 2112: Ahmad Murad Em Atndut Aztz Judge htgh ceunet Mataya Kuata Lumpur 5 sth HvMNtgXmttDVy5t:4PCau9 -we Sum Mn... wm be used m mm we ntnmn Mtms nnmmnnl vn mtme wet couNsEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: EN ZUL SADDIGIN SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFF: YEYUAN iiiAisHi'AH, JALIDAH L ASSOCIATES couNsEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS: DATO' HANIF HASSAN SOLICITORS FOR THE DEFENDANTS: TETUAN HANIF HASSAN .1. co Cases rmerrea in: Legislation Relerved to: Decision Date 21 03 2023 5 sw HVMNiqXmuDVy5c4PCau§ 5” ‘Nat! sum -m..mi nausea mve4Wl'eniwiruH|YmViisnnm'ii:nlv1:FiLiNG Parui

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B)

PERAYU LAI HEN BENG RESPONDEN Jabatan Peguam Negara

[1] Section 498 of the Penal Code is an archaic and anachronistic provision which comes from an unfortunate bygone Victorian era when women were regarded as the personal property of men or even an extension of men not unlike how slaves were treated for a long time until abolished in the last century.[2] Section 498 is unconstitutional for the reason that it unlawfully discriminates only on the ground of gender which is violative of Article 8(2).[3] Constitutional validity deals with the objective compliance of the impugned law vis-à-vis the FC. And when it concerns pre-Merdeka law, the Judiciary is only objectively empowered to modify the law to the extent of rendering the law valid. Repeal is the last option where the only way to render the law valid would be to delete it.CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE: Whether Section 498 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental principle of equality governed under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution? – archaic and paternalistic law – pre-Merdeka law – complaint made by the husband of the woman - women as their husband’s property – seduction by one man towards a married woman - woman’s autonomy and dignity – gender discrimination – gender equality – protection of the rights of the husband and not those of wife – gender bias – Article 162(6) of the Federal Constitution – modification of pre-Merdeka law into accord with the Federal Constitution – modification of the law – repeal and amendment of the law –

15/12/2023

YAA Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan MatKorumYAA Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan MatYAA Tan Sri Dato' Mohamad Zabidin bin Mohd DiahYA Datuk Harmindar Singh DhaliwalYA Dato' Abu Bakar Bin JaisYA Datuk Abdul Karim Bin Abdul Jalil

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fb326ec5-25df-45d4-9ade-e23938338f45&Inline=true

06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 1 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL REFERENCE NO.: 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) Between Lai Hen Beng … Appellant And Public Prosecutor … Respondent Coram: Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat, CJ Mohamad Zabidin bin Mohd Diah, CJM Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, FCJ Abu Bakar bin Jais, FCJ Abdul Karim bin Abdul Jalil, FCJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT INTRODUCTION [1] The present and relatively straightforward challenge takes the form of a constitutional reference. The appellant argues that section 498 of the Penal Code (‘PC’) is unconstitutional on the ground that it unfairly discriminates against women in violation of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution (‘FC’). [2] In terms of the brief facts, the appellant was charged with an offence under section 498 of the PC in the Magistrate’s Court. In the course of the proceedings, he sought to challenge the constitutionality of the said 15/12/2023 11:01:43 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) Kand. 35 S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 2 section. The matter was then transmitted to the High Court in Shah Alam and then further transmitted to the Federal Court. This happened consecutively in accordance with sections 30 and 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (‘CJA 1964’). [3] In this regard, the sole constitutional question posed in this reference reads as follows: “Whether section 498 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental principle of equality governed under Article 8(1) and 8(2) of the Federal Constitution?”. [4] For ease of reference, and unless otherwise stated specifically, any reference in this judgment to ‘Articles’ shall be taken to mean references to the FC whereas any mention of section 498 shall be construed to mean section 498 of the PC. [5] Given the line of argument advanced in this case and the nature of the law under scrutiny, two major issues arise for our determination: (i) Is section 498 unconstitutional on the ground of unlawful discrimination? (ii) Secondly, if the answer to (i) above is in the affirmative (meaning that section 498 is unconstitutional), what then is the effect of the declaration of unconstitutionality? The reason why this issue arises will become apparent later in this judgment. S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 3 ANALYSIS/DECISION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 498 Article 8 [6] Before we delve into the arguments on the validity of section 498, and since the constitutional question centres on Article 8, we think it is appropriate to first espouse the law on Article 8. [7] Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 8 stipulate thus: “Equality 8. (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. (2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.”. [8] In explaining the extent of the application of the two provisions above, Abdoolcader J said as follows in Public Prosecutor v Datuk Harun bin Haji Idris & Ors [1976] 2 MLJ 116 (‘Harun – High Court’), at page 119: “Article 8(2) contains a specific and particular application of the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the law embodied in Article 8(1). Therefore, discrimination against any citizen only on the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth or any of them in any law is prohibited under S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 4 Article 8(2) and such discrimination cannot be validated by having recourse to the principle of reasonable classification which is permitted by Article 8(1) (Srinivasa Aiyar v Saraswathi Ammal AIR 1952 Mad 193 at p. 195; Kathi Raning Rawat v State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123 at p. 125). In cases not covered by Article 8(2), the general principle of equality embodied in Article 8(1) is attracted whenever discrimination is alleged, and if accordingly discrimination is alleged on a ground other than those specified in Article 8(2), the case must be decided under the general provisions of Article 8(1). Article 8(1) and (2) must be read together, their combined effect is not that the State cannot discriminate or pass unequal laws, but that if it does so, the discrimination or the inequality must be based on some reasonable ground (Article 8(1)), and that, due to Article 8(2), religion, race, descent or place of birth alone is not and cannot be a reasonable ground of discrimination against citizens. The word 'discrimination' in Article 8(2) involves an element of unfavourable bias. The use of the word ‘only’ in Article 8(2) connotes that what is discountenanced is discrimination purely and solely on account of all or any one or more of the grounds mentioned in that clause. A discrimination based on any of these grounds and also on other grounds is not affected by Article 8(2) though it may be hit by Article 8(1) (Anjali v State of West Bengal AIR 1952 Cal 825 829 at p. 829).”. [9] To summarise, both Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 8 though related, are applied with differing specificity. In relation to Article 8(2), the standard presumption of constitutionality of legislation/act applies. It is for the attacking party to overcome the presumption by demonstrating how the impugned provision violates any one or more of the limbs of Clause (2). The use of the word ‘only’ in Article 8(2) requires that the alleged discrimination is specific to any of the grounds mentioned in Clause (2). S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 5 [10] Once the attack has been mounted, the defending party must then demonstrate either one of two things. First, that the impugned matter does not discriminate on any of the grounds argued. Or, if this cannot be demonstrated, then the defending party is only left with the option of establishing that the discrimination is ‘expressly authorised’ by the FC. [11] In this sense, Article 8(2) is a very specific provision. If a challenge is successfully made on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 8(2), it would follow that the impugned matter/legislation/act is inconsistent with the FC and is liable to be struck down under Article 4(1) if it is post- Merdeka. Otherwise, it must be dealt with in accordance with Article 162(6). [12] Article 8(1) on the other hand is a more generic provision when compared to Article 8(2). Article 8(1) is a catch-all provision that outlaws discrimination in cases that might not fall within the umbrella of Article 8(2). In such a challenge, and taking guidance from the decision of the Federal Court in Datuk Haji Harun Bin Haji Idris v Public Prosecutor [1977] 2 MLJ 155 (‘Harun – Federal Court’), two things must be shown. [13] Firstly, it must be shown that the discrimination is founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing between persons that can be grouped together from others left out of the group. Secondly, the differentiation must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned law. The classification may be founded on different bases such as geography, or according to objects or occupations and the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of the classification and the object of the law in question. S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 6 [14] In the relatively recent judgment of this Court in Alma Nudo Atenza v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 4 MLJ 1 (‘Alma Nudo’), this Court also emphasised the importance of the test of proportionality which is housed in Article 8(1) read with Article 5(1). In other words, not only must there be a nexus between the impugned legislative measure and the legitimate legislative aim, but the measure itself (which infringes upon a fundamental right) must itself be proportionate to the legitimate legislative objective. If it does not meet the test of reasonable classification or meets it but fails to have any nexus to any legitimate legislative aim, then the impugned provision/act runs afoul of Article 8(1) and is liable to be dealt with either under Articles 4(1) or 162, as the case may be. [15] At this point, another observation has to be made about Article 8(2). At the time Harun – High Court and Harun – Federal Court were decided, Article 8(2) had not yet been amended. In 2001, the FC was amended vide Act A1130 by inserting into Article 8(2) the word ‘gender’. In other words, and in addition to the other specific stipulations, Article 8(2) also expressly prohibits (unless expressly authorised by the FC) discrimination in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment, inter alia only on the grounds of gender. [16] The 2001 constitutional amendment only added another prohibited category of discrimination (gender) but did not otherwise change the basis of the application of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 8 as espoused in Harun – High Court and Harun – Federal Court. As such, while the respondent has made the commendable attempt of taking us through the legislative S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 7 history of the amendment to Article 8(2) leading up to the insertion of the “gender” category, we do not, with respect, consider the said legislative history relevant to the discussion in this case as nothing turns on it. [17] Having set out the trite application of Article 8, we shall now set out the key points of contention between the parties as we understand them. The Appellant’s Case [18] The appellant’s argument is that section 498 unlawfully discriminates against women. Learned counsel submits that the section follows the paternalistic and archaic approach of treating women as chattel to their husbands. An aggrieved husband is entitled to pursue the prosecution of any other person who has enticed or taken away his wife but there is no recourse to a wife whose husband is enticed by other woman. In other words, section 498 only protects a husband’s right to a peaceful and happy marriage without the interference of a third party. This, according to the appellant, discriminates against women by treating them with indignity and inequality in violation of both Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 8. [19] The appellant however, does not stop at saying that section 498 is unlawfully discriminatory. They argue that the entire ethos of section 498 is archaic. [20] Thus, for two seemingly intertwined reasons (discrimination and anachronism), the appellant urges the Court to strike down section 498. Paragraph 12 of the appellant’s written submission dated 3.7.2023 states: S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 8 “12. We humbly submit that in today’s date and time, where the country is moving towards advocating gender equality, it is unfair for the Court’s to deprive women of the right to equality. Laws that put men in control of their wives by depriving women the right to their sexuality and body which belongs to themselves must be abolished. Courts cannot allow provisions which treat the husband as his wife’s master to remain on statutes. Courts cannot be the tool that allows women to be deprived of their gender equality. A statutory provision which demeans and degrades the status of a woman falls foul of the modern constitutional doctrine and must therefore be struck down.”. The Respondent’s Case [21] The respondent maintains that section 498 is not unconstitutional either under Clauses (1) or (2) of Article 8. Based on our earlier brief exposition of Article 8, and as will be apparent further into this judgment, we only find it necessary to consider the respondent’s arguments on Article 8(2). [22] In justifying any possible discrimination in this case, the respondent appears to have merged the jurisprudence on Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 8 together. In other words, the respondent has attempted to apply the reasonable classification test applicable to Article 8(1) to avoid the finding of discrimination under Article 8(2). This is exactly the sort of approach that Abdoolcader J in Harun – High Court suggested is not possible. In His Lordship’s words, “discrimination against any citizen only on the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth or any of them in any law is prohibited under Article 8(2) and such discrimination cannot be validated by having recourse to the principle of reasonable classification which is permitted by Article 8(1).” (see Harun – High Court, page 119). S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 9 [23] We have explained this above but for clarity, it bears further explanation as follows. Article 8(1) is the all-encompassing provision on equality in that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. In this sense, clearly discernible persons or classes of persons can be differentiated and discriminated against provided that the discrimination bears a reasonable nexus to a legitimate aim (see Harun – Federal Court) and provided that the measure itself is proportionate to the said legislative objective it serves (see Alma Nudo). [24] Article 8(2) however, is a specific anti-discrimination provision that stipulates that “there shall be no discrimination” against citizens (as opposed to “all persons” on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender. If that discrimination has been established and the discrimination is only on any of the grounds stated in Article 8(2), then such discrimination can only be justified by express authorisation from the FC itself. Given this express constitutional directive, it follows that in respect of any discrimination on any of the grounds only in Article 8(2), the general tests of Article 8(1) cannot apply. Decision on Constitutionality of Section 498 of the Penal Code [25] Having considered the law and parties’ respective submissions, we are convinced that section 498 is unconstitutional for the reason that it unlawfully discriminates only on the ground of gender which is violative of Article 8(2). [26] Section 498 only entitles husbands to rely on the provision to the exclusion of all wives. This is, as such, discrimination on grounds of gender only. The fact that this is the case is also made amply lucid by S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 10 what is stated in section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CPC’), a provision to which even the respondent refers to and acknowledges. Section 132 states as follows: “Where complaint by husband 132. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under section 498 of the Penal Code except upon a complaint made by the husband of the woman.”. [27] The only legal defence available to the respondent is found in Article 8(2) itself, and that is to demonstrate that this discrimination on grounds of gender only is expressly authorised by the Constitution. The respondent has not alluded to any such defence be it in its written or oral submissions. In other words, they have failed to point out any provision of the FC that expressly authorises discrimination on the grounds of gender only in the form that section 498 connotes. As such, we find that section 498 is inconsistent with Article 8(2) and on that basis section 498 is unconstitutional. [28] We must state again that any of the respondent’s attempts to justify the existence of section 498 on the basis of reasonable classification or that it has any purported nexus to a legitimate legislative aim is beside the point and incongruous to the stipulations of Article 8(2). Those arguments are therefore rejected. [29] In the premises, we answer the constitutional question in the affirmative to the extent that it relates to Article 8(2). For reasons already explained, we do not consider it necessary to express any view on whether section 498 is constitutional vis-à-vis Article 8(1). S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 11 THE FINDING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY – REPERCUSSIONS The Issue [30] The only remaining issue in this judgment is the legal outcome of our finding of unconstitutionality. [31] In their written submission, the appellant did not take a clear position as to whether section 498 is a pre- or post-Merdeka law. In their oral submission, the appellant takes the position that section 498 is ‘no longer’ a pre-Merdeka law given that the PC was, in their submission (as a whole) codified in 1973. Irrespective of their stance on pre- or post-Merdeka law, the appellant nevertheless accepts that section 498 was never amended ever since it was first enacted. [32] The respondent too, effectively accepts that section 498 was never amended since it was first enacted in the original PC of India on 18.10.1860 which was later applied in the Federated Malay States (‘FMS’) in 1871 and the Unfederated Malay States (‘UFMS’) in 1872. We summarise the rest of the respondent’s historical analysis as follows. [33] In 1935, the FMS Penal Code was enacted and applied throughout the FMS. Then, on 18.12.1948 upon the formation of the Malayan Union, the 1935 Penal Code was extended in its application throughout Malaya i.e. throughout the FMS and UFMS having repealed their previously applicable iterations. [34] Eventually, on 31.3.1976, Parliament passed the Penal Code (Amendment and Extension) Act 1976 to extend the application of the S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 12 FMS Penal Code to Sabah and Sarawak and to repeal the equivalent versions applicable in those individual jurisdictions. [35] On 7.8.1997, the FMS Penal Code was revised and renamed the Penal Code [Act 574] with retrospective effect from 31.3.1976. [36] Leaving aside the revisions and legislative transformations to the codes that lead to the PC, both parties accept that section 498 has remained substantively the same from when it was first enacted based on the Indian Penal Code. Pre- and Post-Merdeka Laws, and Article 162 of the FC [37] In ordinary constitutional challenges, the methodology is rather straightforward. In a typical case, a legal provision is challenged on the ground that it is inconsistent with the FC and is therefore, by virtue of Article 4(1), void to the extent of the inconsistency. This is explained in greater detail by this Court in Wong Shee Kai v Government of Malaysia [2022] 6 MLJ 102 (‘Wong Shee Kai’) – specifically the difference between an incompetency challenge and inconsistency challenge. [38] In summary, an incompetency challenge can only be brought under Article 4 – specifically Clauses (3) and (4) thereof. The operative words of Clause (3) in particular are “the validity of any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of any State”. It follows that a law that is challenged under Clauses (3) and (4) of Article 4 must, in the first place, have been passed by Parliament or the Legislature of any State. S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 13 [39] This makes sense considering that Parliament and the State Legislatures as they exist now, owe their existence to the FC which reigns supreme over them and all other branches of government. In fact, legislative power is derived from the FC unlike for example, the United Kingdom where Parliament is supreme or the ultimate constitutional authority. [40] The facts of this case bring to the fore an entirely different yet limited species of cases that do not fall within the ambit of Article 4. The significance of Article 4 is that it declares the FC supreme. But, in terms of striking down laws that are inconsistent with the FC, Clause (1) clarifies that it only applies to laws passed after 31.8.1957 i.e. Merdeka Day. “Merdeka Day” is a term very clearly and emphatically defined in Article 160(2) as follows: ““Merdeka Day” means the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty- seven;”. [41] Having understood this, we now turn our attention to pre-Merdeka laws. While we, for ease of understanding, call them pre-Merdeka laws, the FC actually has a defined term for these laws describing them “existing laws”. In this regard, Article 160(2) provides thus: ““existing law” means any law in operation in the Federation or any part thereof immediately before Merdeka Day;”. [42] Hence, any reference to “pre-Merdeka” laws in this judgment is necessarily a reference to “existing laws” as defined in Article 160(2). And S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 14 such laws are governed by Article 162 the relevant portions of which stipulate the following: “Existing laws 162. (1) Subject to the following provisions of this Article and Article 163, the existing laws shall, until repealed by the authority having power to do so under this Constitution, continue in force on and after Merdeka Day, with such modifications as may be made therein under this Article and subject to any amendments made by federal or State law. … (6) Any court or tribunal applying the provision of any existing law which has not been modified on or after Merdeka Day under this Article or otherwise may apply it with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into accord with the provisions of this Constitution. (7) In this Article “modification” includes amendment, adaptation and repeal.”. [43] The rationale for this provision is to cater for laws which were enacted prior to Merdeka Day i.e. a period of time where the FC did not yet exist. Taking the original version of the PC for instance, it was enacted in the late 1800s – a time long before the existence of an independent Malaya (later Malaysia), let alone with its own written FC. There was therefore at the time, and strictly speaking, no contemplation of a written supreme document making provisions for example on separation of powers, the delineation of legislative powers/fields or a written guarantee of fundamental liberties. S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 15 [44] Presumably to overcome the need to redraft and re-enact laws which are in line with the FC, Article 162(1) specifically states that those laws are to remain in force as “existing laws” subject to modifications made either: one, under Article 162 or two, by Federal or State law. The second implication of Article 162 is that if the existing law has not been modified under Article 162, then any Court or tribunal applying it may apply with any such modifications necessary so as to bring the law into accord with the FC. “Modification” in Article 162(7) is defined as including “amendment”, “adaptation” and “repeal”. [45] Now, the appellant alleges that section 498 is no longer a pre- Merdeka or “existing law” because the PC was codified, in their submission, in 1973. Perhaps they meant 1976. In any case, before determining whether section 498 is no longer a pre-Merdeka law, it would be useful to analyse a few cases that explain the application of Article 162(6) and (7). [46] Perhaps the earliest case is the decision of the Privy Council in B Surinder Singh Kanda v The Government of the Federation of Malaya [1962] 28 MLJ 169 (‘Surinder’). In that case, the plaintiff had challenged his dismissal from the police force, among others, on the grounds that he was dismissed by a body lower in rank to the body that had the power to dismiss a police officer of his rank. In determining the appeal, the Privy Council had to consider which was the appropriate authority to dismiss the plaintiff given that there were changes in the service structure of the police commissions from pre- to post-Merdeka. [47] Lord Denning made the following observation, at page 171: S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 16 “If there was in any respect a conflict between the existing law and the Constitution (such as to impede the functioning of the Police Service Commission in accordance with the Constitution) then the existing law would have to be modified so as to accord with the Constitution. There are elaborate provisions for modification contained in Article 162… … It appears to their Lordships that, in view of the conflict between the existing law (as to the powers of the Commissioner of Police) and the provisions of the Constitution (as to the duties of the Police Service Commission) the Yang di- Pertuan Agong could himself (under Article 162(4)), have made modifications in the existing law within the first two years after Merdeka Day. (The attention of their Lordships was drawn to modifications he had made in the existing law relating to the railway service and the prison service.) But the Yang di-Pertuan Agong did not make any modifications in the powers of the Commissioner of Police, and it is too late for him now to do so. In these circumstances, their Lordships think it is necessary for the Court to do so under Article 162(6). It appears to their Lordships that there cannot, at one and the same time, be two authorities, each of whom has a concurrent power to appoint members of the police service. One or other must be entrusted with the power to appoint. In a conflict of this kind between the existing law and the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.”. [Emphasis added] [48] Clause (4) of Article 162 has since been repealed by Act 25/1963. Nevertheless, the observations of the Privy Council remain relevant insofar as they concern “existing” or pre-Merdeka laws which at the time they come to be applied by a Court or tribunal, have not yet been modified to be in accord with the FC. In this regard Lord Denning observed, at page 171: S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 17 “The Court must apply the existing law with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into accord with the Constitution. The necessary modification is that since Merdeka Day it is the Police Service Commission (and not the Commissioner of Police) which has the power to appoint members of the police service. And that is just what has happened. The Police Service Commission has in fact made the appointments. And their Lordships are of opinion that they were lawfully made.”. [49] As such, the Privy Council read the law as modified and applied it to the case. Our reading of Surinder also suggests that the constitutional imperative to any Court or tribunal applying a pre-Merdeka law that is inconsistent with the FC is a mandatory one in spite of the use of the phrase “may apply it with such modifications” in Article 162(6). This is suggested by Lord Denning in the above passage where he says that “[t]he Court must apply the existing law with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into accord with the Constitution”. [50] Thus, under Article 162(6), the Courts simply do not have the option of ignoring having to modify a pre-Merdeka or “existing law” when doing so is necessary to bring that provision into accord with the FC. The fact that this is a mandatory exercise despite the word “may” is suggested in Article 162(6) because the Courts can only modify the law if “it has not been modified on or after Merdeka Day”. Under Article 162(1) only “the authority having power to do so under this Constitution” has the ability to amend it subject to amendments made by federal or State law. It follows that where neither the “authority having power to do so” (including Parliament or the State Legislature) have performed this duty, the Courts applying that law must then, as a final consequence, do it in their stead. The Courts’ refusal to do so would tantamount to a condonation of a S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 18 constitutional violation and end up amounting to a dereliction of the Judicial oath and duty to “preserve, protect and defend” the FC. [51] The next case relevant to this discussion and which also refers to Surinder, is the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors v Sagong bin Tasi & Ors [2005] 6 MLJ 289 (‘Sagong Tasi’). The case concerned, among others, the interpretation and application of the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 (‘APA 1954’) in terms of, among other things, compensation for acquisition of land from aboriginal people. [52] In that case, sections 11 and 12 of the APA 1954 provided for compensation to aboriginal peoples in the event that their land was acquired if their community could establish a ‘claim to fruit or rubber trees on any State land which is alienated, granted, leased for any purpose, occupied temporarily under licence or otherwise disposed of’. The learned Judge who heard the matter at first instance was of the view that any compensation to be awarded to the plaintiffs in that case ought to be awarded in terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (‘LAA 1960’) and not the APA 1954. The Court of Appeal agreed with this approach when it was challenged on appeal. [53] The Court of Appeal most pertinently observed as follows: “[36] After careful consideration, I do not agree with the defendants’ submissions. I think that the judge in the court below was right. And I will explain why. [37] So far as s 11 is concerned, it deals only with any claims the plaintiffs may have to fruit or rubber trees on their land. It has nothing to do with the S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 19 deprivation of their customary community title to the land. As regards s 12, it is a pre-Merdeka provision. It must therefore be interpreted in a modified way so that it fits in with the Federal Constitution…”. [54] The Court of Appeal then went to explain how the modification ought to be done in that case, as follows: “[40] That is achieved by not reading the words ‘the State Authority may grant compensation therefor’ as conferring a discretion on the State Authority whether to grant compensation or not. For otherwise it would render s 12 of the 1954 Act violative of art 13(2) and void because it will be a law that provides for the compulsory acquisition of property without adequate compensation. A statute which confers a discretion on an acquiring authority whether to pay compensation or not enables that authority not to pay any compensation. It is therefore a law that does not provide for the payment of adequate compensation and that is why s 12 will be unconstitutional. Such a consequence is to be avoided, if possible, because a court in its constitutional role always tries to uphold a statute rather than strike it down as violating the Constitution.”. [55] The following observation is also crucial: “[41] How then do you modify s 12 to render it harmonious with Article 13(2)? I think you do that by reading the relevant phrase in section 12 as ‘the State Authority shall grant adequate compensation therefor.’ By interpreting the word ‘may’ for ‘shall’ and by introducing ‘adequate’ before compensation, the modification is complete. I am aware that ordinarily we, the judges, are not permitted by our own jurisprudence, to do this. But here you have a direction by the supreme law of the Federation that such modifications as the present must be done. That is why we can resort to this extraordinary method of interpretation.”. [Emphasis added] S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 20 [56] And thus, by amending section 12 of the APA 1954 and adding the phrase “adequate compensation” into that section, it served the twofold purpose of: one, not putting section 12 at odds with Article 13(2) and second, rendering the principles of adequate compensation in the LAA 1960 applicable in accord with Article 13(2). [57] From the foregoing cases we surmise the following principles relating to Clauses (6) and (7) of Article 162: (1) At the time a Court or tribunal is called upon to apply a pre- Merdeka law, and that law has not yet been modified either under Article 162 or by federal or State law, then the Court has the duty to modify the law to bring it into accord with the FC. This a mandatory judicial duty in spite of the use of the words “may apply it with such modifications as may be necessary” in Article 162(6). “May” does not in this context, unlike in some other cases, denote a discretionary power. (2) The power to “modify” includes adapting, amending, or repealing that law. This is a unique power which borders on legislative power. While that may be so, it is a unique power of interpretation applicable only to “existing laws” or pre- Merdeka laws conferred unto the Judiciary by the FC itself with a view to bringing the law into accord with the FC and not for any other purpose. (3) As a pervading rule, Courts are slow to strike down laws as they are presumed to be constitutional. This rule applies to pre-Merdeka (or “existing” laws) in as much as it is to post- S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 21 Merdeka laws. That said, a stronger indication that points to a lesser constitutional inclination to strike down or “repeal” a pre-Merdeka law is, in our view, also strongly implied by Article 162(7) itself. This is because “modification” is defined in Article 162(7) as including, in addition to repeal, amendment and adaptation with a view to “bringing into accord” the pre- Merdeka law with the FC. And thus, where a law can be applied with after amendment or adaptation, repealing it or striking it down is not necessary. (4) As a corollary to (3) above, it follows that how the Courts deal with and apply an impugned pre-Merdeka law depends on the pre-Merdeka law that is in question. [58] To illustrate point (4) above, the case of Sagong Tasi (supra) is in our view, an apt illustration of where the Court, with a view to bringing the law into accord with FC, amended the relevant provision of the APA 1954. Surinder is perhaps an apt illustration of adaptation where the Court read one pre-existing legal term to mean another legal phrase later used in the FC with a view to synchronising appointing authorities. [59] In the above two case examples, repeal or striking down did not appear to be the preferred measure for bringing those impugned provisions into accord with the FC. [60] In terms of criminal legislation, one example that commends itself to us is the minority judgment of this Court in Letitia Bosman v PP & other appeals [2020] 8 CLJ 147 (‘Letitia’). One of the many issues raised in that case was the constitutional validity of section 302 of the PC which S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 22 contains the offence and sentence for murder. The mandatory death penalty provision was attacked as being unconstitutional. By 8-1, the majority of the Federal Court found that the mandatory death penalty was constitutional. It is not our intention to revisit the arguments raised in that case on their merits but only to determine how the minority judgment dealt with section 302 upon arriving at the conclusion that the mandatory death sentence – as the only sentence prescribed – was unconstitutional. [61] Nallini FCJ in her minority judgment identified that section 302 was enacted pre-Merdeka and continued, at that time, to be enforced and in those circumstances, it had to be dealt with in accordance with Clauses (6) and (7) of Article 162. Per Nallini FCJ: “[330] The optimum solution is to modify s. 302 PC such that the sentence affords the court the option of punishment of either life imprisonment or the death penalty. Such modification permits the court to make a decision as to the most appropriate punishment to be meted out in accordance with the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The proposed modified provision would read: Punishment for murder 302. Whoever commits murder shall be punished: (a) With imprisonment for life; or (b) Death.”. [62] Assuming the minority judgment had adopted the course of striking down or repealing the punishment for murder, the end result would have been that there would not have been any punishment for murder S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 23 whatsoever. Since Article 162 provides recourse to the Courts in the form of interpretation by way of modification, it is clear that the more drastic measure of repeal should remain the last choice. We therefore respectfully concur with that part of Nallini FCJ’s minority judgment i.e. on the interpretation and application of Clauses (6) and (7) of Article 162. The modification proposed in the minority judgment did not have the effect of changing either the character of the sentence or offence of murder because it retained the death penalty and modified only that much of section 302 of the PC which made the imposition of such a grievous punishment mandatory. [63] With the law and relevant case examples in mind, the next step in this analysis is to determine whether or not section 498 is a pre-Merdeka or “existing” law. Whether Section 498 is a Pre-Merdeka Law [64] It is our view that section 498 is a pre-Merdeka law. It follows that we do not agree with the appellant that section 498 is or has become a post-Merdeka law. Our reasons are as follows. [65] During oral argument, the appellant suggested that while section 498 was adopted (and remains unamended) from the Indian Penal Code when it was first enacted in the FMS and UFMS, it has over time been codified in the Penal Code. It is therefore, in their submission, no longer pre-Merdeka law. [66] In our view, while Parliament may have, throughout the years, amended the Penal Code numerous times, that in itself is insufficient to S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 24 render section 498 a post-Merdeka law. We have arrived at this conclusion upon a wholesome reading of Article 162. Clause (1) thereof reads as follows, in material part: “(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Article… the existing laws shall, … continue in force on and after Merdeka Day, with such modifications as may be made therein under this Article and subject to any amendments made by federal or State law.”. [67] At first blush, the appellant’s argument appears to make sense as according to Article 162(1), the existing law in question shall continue in force “subject to any amendments made by federal or State law.” The question is whether an amendment to a statute generally or to one of its unrelated provisions also keeps into force some other unrelated provision within it. In our view, the appellant’s position cannot be correct if we have regard to the words in Clause (6) of Article 162, which state: “(6) Any court or tribunal applying the provision of any existing law which has not been modified on or after Merdeka Day under this Article or otherwise may apply it with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into accord with the provisions of this Constitution.”. [Emphasis added] [68] The emphasised words “applying the provision of any existing law” suggest that the framers of the FC had in mind that Courts will consider the validity of an existing law not purely an on “entire statute” basis but based on individual provisions. As such, we are unable to sustain the appellant’s interpretation of what is meant by “no longer” a pre-Merdeka law as regards section 498. S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 25 [69] Our view is also further fortified by our reference to Article 4(1) which apply to post-Merdeka laws. Specifically, the phrase “shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void” also suggests that the framers had intended by default that all laws should, unless otherwise expressed or implied by Parliament, be considered severable. As such, the striking down of one unrelated provision would not affect an otherwise unrelated provision in the same law. The constitutional design as regards laws passed after Merdeka Day which attract Article 4(1) and pre-Merdeka (or “existing” laws) which attract Article 162 appear to be consistent. [70] Hence, we take the view that until and unless it can be shown that a pre-Merdeka or “existing” law has either expressly or impliedly (in one form or another) been modified either by federal or State law as expressly suggested by Article 162(1), then the assumption must remain that at the time the Court or tribunal is applying the said impugned law, it has not yet been modified by legislation passed either by Parliament or the State Legislatures, as the case may be. [71] This view of ours is also supported by the fact that from the respondent’s submission, the various extensions that happened over the years with the last one in 1976 to extend the PC’s application throughout Malaysia was merely to render it in force. Whether or not an individual provision has been modified remains to be tested on a case-to-case basis. And, on the facts of the present case, there is nothing on record or in our research to suggest that section 498 has ever been modified by federal law. Even parties concede that this is so. [72] Additionally, and for completeness, it has not escaped our attention that the Penal Code was revised in 1997. However, it is our view that this S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 26 does not materially change the outcome in this case sufficiently enough to establish the invocation of Article 162(1) to convert section 498 from a pre-Merdeka law to a post-Merdeka law. [73] As stated earlier, it has not been shown that Parliament or the State Legislature had validly amended the pre-Merdeka law in question. The Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1] (“RLA 1968”) does not, in our view, qualify as “any amendments made by federal or State law”. This is also clarified beyond doubt by the lengthy provision of section 6 of the RLA 1968 which although it allows the Commissioner to make ‘amendments’ to laws, such amendments, by virtue of subsections (2) and (3), cannot affect the substance of the law. The said section 6(2) and 6(3) of the RLA 1968 read: “ (2) In subsection (1) “amendment” includes, where it is used in relation to the powers conferred upon the Commissioner, any variation of any law which is necessary for giving effect to any enactment in any other law whereby the scope, effect or construction of any provision of the first mentioned law is varied, modified, enlarged, restricted, qualified or otherwise affected. (3) The powers conferred on the Commissioner by subsection (1) shall not be taken to imply any power in him to make any alteration or amendment in the substance of any law.”. [74] In the circumstances, we hold that section 498 is a pre-Merdeka or “existing” law within the meaning of Article 162. Effect of this Judgment The Legal Predicaments S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 27 [75] At this point, we have found that section 498 is inconsistent with Article 8. We have also found that section 498 is a pre-Merdeka law and in light of Clauses (6) and (7) of Article 162, this Court cannot immediately take the approach of simply suggesting to strike it down as is the only option under Article 4(1) for post-Merdeka laws. According to Clause (6), we must apply section 498 “with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into accord with the provisions of the FC”. Two predicaments arise at this point of this judgment. [76] The first predicament is this. Parties, in their submissions (written and oral) have made valiant attempts to respectively assail and defend the constitutional validity of section 498 against Article 8. However, neither one of the parties has lent much assistance on how section 498 is to be modified. The appellant, as stated earlier, has taken the erroneous position that section 498 is “no longer” a pre-Merdeka law. The respondent on the other hand has not considered any alternative to our possible finding that section 498 is unconstitutional. [77] The second predicament is that the present case arises in the form of a constitutional reference and that too originally from the Magistrates’ Court. Section 84(3) of the CJA 1964 states that in transmitting a special case to the Federal Court, the High Court shall, “state the question which in his opinion has arisen as to the effect of the Constitution in the form of a special case which so far as may be possible shall state the said question in a form which shall permit of an answer being given in the affirmative or the negative.” In short, the Federal Court appears to be limited in its function to only providing a yes or no answer to the constitutional question referred to it. S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 28 [78] The above is also jarring in light of section 85(2) of the CJA 1964 which states: “(2) When the Federal Court shall have determined any special case under this section the High Court in which the proceedings in the course of which the case has been stated are pending shall continue and dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the judgment of the Federal Court and otherwise according to law.”. [79] One could therefore fairly take the position that based on sections 84(3) and 85(2) of the CJA 1964, the Federal Court after determining the question of constitutionality, should transmit the case to the High Court to make the appropriate modification to the pre-Merdeka law. In light of the provisions of the CJA 1964 and the limited nature of the reference jurisdiction of this Court, we would tend to agree that this is the best approach. [80] Having said that, the Federal Court being the apex Court and when dealing with constitutional questions on a pre-Merdeka law, can still upon answering the question or questions in the affirmative or negative, make suggestions on how the High Court should modify the impugned law with a view to bringing it into accord with the FC. That leaves us with the first predicament on the basis to constitutionally modify section 498 under Article 162. Modification of Section 498 [81] As has been suggested in this judgment, the one and only goal of judicial modification under Article 162(6) is to bring the impugned S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 29 provision into accord with the FC. On the facts of this case, the appellant’s primary argument is that section 498 unlawfully discriminates only on the ground of gender in violation of Article 8(2). In this regard, and considering that this is a constitutional reference, we are only left to consider what is the best constitutional recourse for the High Court. Should section 498 be judicially adapted, amended or repealed? [82] In considering what is the best recourse, we shall first consider the option of adapting the law. In our view, and taking the example of Surinder, adaptation is not the appropriate course as there is no federal law that has been brought to our attention upon which 498 can be adapted. This option of modification of section 498 is therefore not possible on the circumstances of this case. That leaves us to consider either amendment or repeal. [83] Since repeal is the last option, we have agonised long and hard over whether section 498 can be retained as law by bringing it into accord with the FC by way of amendment. Since section 498 discriminates in the way prohibited by Article 8(2), it is logical to suggest at first blush that section 498 can be amended by reading it in a way that removes the unlawful gender-based discrimination and thereby applying the section equally to both spouses. Upon deliberation and consideration of this hypothetical suggestion, it is our view that amending the provision to apply to both spouses equally is not a possible outcome in the circumstances of this case. [84] This then presents an opportune moment to interpret the words “amendment” and “repeal” as employed in Article 162(7). S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 30 [85] As a general rule, “to amend” a law also includes the option of repealing it. See for instance the definition of “amend” in section 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388]. While Act 388 cannot apply to the FC, Act 388’s definition of “amend” is no less declaratory of a longstanding principle of law that “repeal” is a form of “amendment”. This principle remains applicable to the FC inasmuch as it is applicable to ordinary laws. In fact, Article 159 which caters for the procedure to amend the FC itself states in Clause (6) that any reference to “amendment” in Article 159 includes addition and repeal. This again makes logical sense from an interpretive and legislative standpoint as an amendment to any law (including the FC) is required to give effect to a repeal of that law or any of its provisions. [86] With this in mind, the words: “amendment” and “repeal” in Article 162(7) come into sharp focus. Curiously, if in the ordinary general sense “amendment” includes “repeal”, why then would the drafters of the FC see the need to re-emphasise that modification could include “amendment” and “repeal”? “Adaptation” is an interpretive exercise where one provision is read in accordance with a later provision. For all intents and purpose, Article 162(7) could have been worded as “[i]n this Article “modification” includes amendment and adaptation” and based on the ordinary understanding, “amendment” would have included repeal. [87] To our minds, the need to make “repeal” distinct from “amendment” is to make it absolutely clear that in cases where “amendment” is not possible, “repeal” would be a clearly expressed exercisable option to bring that law into accord with the FC. Absent any means to “adapt” the pre- Merdeka law, what then could be the appropriate case where S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 31 “amendment” is not possible leaving only “repeal” as the only possible alternative? [88] Giving significance to the phrase “bring into accord with the provisions of this Constitution” in Article 162(6), the Courts cannot embark on judicial legislation. What this means is that the Courts can, under Article 162 amend pre-Merdeka law to make it into accord with the FC but the purpose of that exercise is solely to make the said pre-Merdeka law consistent with the FC. The process of “amendment” under Article 162(7) in that sense cannot end up destroying or reinvent the legislative intent upon which the pre-Merdeka law was enacted. Viewed in this way, judicial amendment as understood from Article 162(7) is not conceptually the same as legislative amendment. The judicial exercise is limited to only bringing the law into accord with the FC in light of its original intent. If that is not possible, then the Courts cannot go a step beyond that and amend the law beyond its original intent. [89] By parity of reasoning, if the Court in attempting an “amendment” must stretch the provision beyond its original intent to fit it to the FC (which is judicial legislation), then Article 162(7) in expressly singling out the phrase of “repeal” from “amendment” serves to guide the Court to the idea that repealing that law is a feasible final option to bring that law into accord with the FC. [90] It is our view that the approaches taken in Sagong Tasi and the minority in Letitia are clear and valid examples of accepted judicial “amendment” under Article 162(7). The outcomes in those cases do not, in our view, amount to judicial legislation. In Sagong Tasi, the relevant provision of the APA 1954 had already catered for compensation for the S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 32 acquisition of native land. However, the pre-Merdeka provision was constitutionally insufficient and the Court judicially amended the impugned provision such that the APA 1954’s standard of compensation met the requirement of adequate compensation in Article 13(2) of the FC. In Letitia, the minority judgment retained the death penalty but rendered it discretionary. Neither the character of the offence of murder nor the severity of the punishment was fundamentally altered in anyway. The death penalty was retained just that it was turned into a discretionary sentence. [91] There is no case law to the best of our research that can help illustrate the reverse scenario in the two cases above, i.e., an example that can illustrate judicial legislation as opposed to judicial amendment under Article 162(7). To illustrate our point, we think the following hypothetical example is apposite. [92] Let us assume for a moment that there was in existence a pre- Merdeka law that allowed the Government to enslave someone using words to the effect that “X persons may be held as slaves [for designated reasons].” On Merdeka Day, Article 6(1) came into force prohibiting absolutely slavery but allowing in Clause (2) compulsory service for national purposes. In defending the constitutional validity of that law, the Government argues that the clauses may be judicially amended to read: “X persons may be held as slaves for compulsory service for national purposes [for designated reasons].” If the Court were to accede to such a suggestion, it would in our view stray from judicial amendment under Article 162(7) and amount instead to judicial legislation. This is because allowing that kind of amendment would be akin to changing the original intention of the law simply for the reason of retaining it. The only option S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 33 in that scenario would be to repeal that law as it is only in that way that the impugned pre-Merdeka law can be brought into accord with the FC. [93] And thus, and considered as a whole, judicial amendment in Article 162(7) can be used as an interpretive aid to “enhance” or modify legislation to bring it into accord with the FC. It cannot however be the chosen method if amending that pre-Merdeka involves changing its nature or character against its original base legislative intent. In such a case, repeal is the only possible outcome for making that law consistent with the FC. [94] This brings us back to section 498. In our view, section 498 is incapable of judicial amendment under Article 162(7) because doing so would require extensive amendment to the extent of changing the character of the offence. Both parties either accept or do not deny that the sole purpose of the section was to view women as chattel to their husbands to the extent that the enticement/taking away/detention of them is considered an offence. [95] While the respondent maintains that the offence should survive to protect interference with marriages, we do not agree that the section was originally enacted for that broad purpose. If the purpose of section 498 was always to protect marriages, then the law would have been drafted in that way to reflect such a legislative intent. Instead, the law was drafted to protect the right of husbands by allowing them to seek the prosecution of anyone who effectively stole their wives from them. [96] That the law was intended only to apply to the enticement of women only is also made amply clear by section 132 of the CPC cited earlier S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 34 which states that no Court can take cognisance of a section 498 offence unless the complaint is lodged by the husband of the married woman. Amending section 498 to apply to both spouses would also be meaningless without amending section 132 of the CPC and in this case, no one has addressed the validity of section 132 even though it is also a pre-Merdeka law capable of being modified under Article 162. In any case, the provision of section 498 is so intricately drafted that amending it without changing its base legislative intent is judicially impossible. [97] Thus, while judicial amendment to section 498 in the way constitutionally permitted by Article 162(7) would remove the discrimination, that exercise of amendment would also tantamount to redefining the original purpose of the section to the extent that it would alter the very basis upon which the offence in section 498 was originally enacted. In our view, doing this would not amount to solely bringing the provision of section 498 into accord with the FC but to an act of judicial legislation. [98] We are therefore satisfied based on our reasoning earlier that the only possible means to bring section 498 into accord with the FC is to judicially repeal it in its entirety. Judicial Legislation [99] We find it necessary to conclude this judgment by commenting on the submission of the appellant that ties in with our earlier concerns on judicial legislation. S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 35 [100] We fully agree with the appellant that section 498 is an archaic and anachronistic provision which comes from an unfortunate bygone Victorian era when women were regarded as the personal property of men or even an extension of men not unlike how slaves were treated for a long time until abolished in the last century. It took humankind many years to accept that slavery of men and discrimination against women was wrong. So, to suggest that a man or a woman could be considered as property of each other is a regressive step and going back in time to a dark era. We would state and that too without much hesitation that this concept is, to our minds, obsolete. In the modern era, men and women are both capable of being independent and making their own decisions. They can hardly be considered as victims of enticement. [101] Having said that, we are mindful of the constitutional limits of the Judiciary and the fact that section 498 is anachronistic had no bearing to our assessment of its constitutional validity. Whether a law should exist per se on grounds of anachronism is a legislative matter. And while it is true that Article 162(6) allows the Judiciary to modify a pre-Merdeka law in a way resembling legislative power, this judgment clarifies that such a power must only be applied to the extent of bringing that pre-Merdeka law into accord with the FC and not for the purpose of “judicial reformation”. And so, whether or not this anachronistic law of section 498 should remain in our statute books purely on the ground that is outdated is, per se, purely an academic legislative question and one that our elected lawmakers must deliberate upon if they, after this decision, think it necessary to revive it in one form or another. [102] To put it in another way, constitutional challenges can only go as far as attacking legislative validity and not legislative desirability. Legislative S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 36 desirability concerns the public’s subjective and private view of what the law should or should not be. Constitutional validity on the other hand deals with the objective compliance of the impugned law vis-à-vis the FC. And when it concerns pre-Merdeka law, the Judiciary is only objectively empowered to modify the law to the extent of rendering the law valid. Repeal is the last option where the only way to render the law valid would be to delete it. In this regard, we bear in mind the timeless reminder by the late Lord President Suffian who in his treatise An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia (3rd edition, Pacifica Publications, 2007), at page 18, said as follows: “If Parliament is not supreme and its laws may be invalidated by the courts, are the courts then supreme? The answer is yes and no – the courts are supreme in some ways but not in others. They are supreme in the sense that they have the right – indeed the duty – to invalidate Acts enacted outside Parliament’s power, or Acts that are within Parliament’s power but inconsistent with the Constitution. But they are not supreme as regards Acts that are within Parliament’s power and are consistent with the Constitution. The court’s duty then is quite clear; they must apply the law in those Acts without question, irrespective of their private view and prejudice.”. [Emphasis added] [103] The Judiciary or individual Judges cannot engage in judicial legislation or reformation to the extent of substituting their private views for the law. At the risk of repetition, anachronism and the question of section 498’s outdatedness is a problem that extends beyond judicial approach. We state again that section 498 should be repealed under Article 162 not on the ground that it is anachronistic and archaic but for the sole reason that adapting it or amending it would not otherwise satisfy the requirement of Article 162 to, in this case, bring section 498 into accord with Article 8(2). S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 37 CONCLUSION [104] Our judgment herein is to be taken to have effect prospectively. It is trite that judgments, especially in constitutional cases, can be declared to have prospective effect. If at all authority is needed for this proposition, then we find considerable support for it in the dictum of Abdoolcader SCJ in Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311 at page 320. This declaration of prospectivity seeks to preserve all previous prosecutions that have already come to pass. [105] We hereby remit this case to the High Court to be dealt with in accordance with section 85 of the CJA 1964. It is: (1) for the High Court to make the appropriate declarations and orders to give effect to this judgment and otherwise in accordance with the law, and (2) to thereafter make the appropriate directions for the ongoing proceedings at the Magistrate’s Court which is where the charge was originally preferred. Dated: 15th December 2023 -Signed- (TENGKU MAIMUN BINTI TUAN MAT) Chief Justice, Federal Court of Malaysia. S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) 38 List of Counsel For the appellant: Jayarubbiny Jayaraj (with her, Jay Moy Wei Jiun and Puteri Batrisyia Abdul Latif) [Messrs. Jay & Jay] For the respondent: Dato’ Yusaini Amer Abdul Karim (with him, Eyu Ghim Siang) [The Attorney General’s Chambers] S/N xW4y98l1EWa3uI5ODOPRQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AA-A52NCvC-118-11/2022

PLAINTIF 1. ) HLL MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHEW KHOR TENG DEFENDAN PHANG TEE YOONG

Permohonan Defendan (Lampiran 7) di bawah Aturan 45 Kaedah 11 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Permohonan penggantungan perlaksanaan) dibenarkan oleh HMS Puan Hilmiah Binti Yusof pada 15/8/2023.

15/12/2023

Puan Hilmiah Bt Yusof

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=603fb752-33cc-4f06-8d60-a524002c54fc&Inline=true

15/12/2023 09:36:57 AA-A52NCvC-118-11/2022 Kand. 22 S/N Urc/YMwzBkNYKUkACxU/A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Urc/YMwzBkNYKUkACxU/A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Urc/YMwzBkNYKUkACxU/A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Urc/YMwzBkNYKUkACxU/A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Urc/YMwzBkNYKUkACxU/A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Urc/YMwzBkNYKUkACxU/A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Urc/YMwzBkNYKUkACxU/A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Urc/YMwzBkNYKUkACxU/A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal M—A52Ncvc—11a—11/2022 Kand. 22 1:,1u2;:a ;9- u : mum MAHKAMAH l'|NGGlMAg1A 2: upon 2; M ufiggkl FERAK DARUL RIDZUAN RAYLIAN SIVIL N ANTARA 1. NLL MANAGEMEN1 sum am: (Mu. Syuikal: 1159470-A) ‘.‘.PERAV|l-DERAYU 2. cnzw KHOR TENG (Mn. KP: mzznnausaes) um PHANG YEE voone (Na KP : saonnss-51:7) nu DALAIA MAHKAMAH sssvzn mu DI DALAM NEGERI FERAK DARUL RIDZUAN EIDANG KUASA SIVIL) eunmm SIVIL NO: AA~A.52NCvC-IIIZDZZ AIUARA 1. nu unucsusnr sun aun (Mu. Syuikal : 13594104) 2. cnsw KHOR TENG (No. KF:u1Z11<fl5~5B!57 ....PLAlNTIF4‘LAINT|F 1 5w UrdVMwxBkNVKukACxu!A -ms Sum INNDEY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvufilv mm; nnmmgnl VII mum Wm DAN PHANG rs: mom: (Nu. KP : nn:1o4sM37) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN KORUM: HILMIAH EINTI vusor HAKIM MANKAMAN sssvzu SIVIL 1 MANKAMAI1 sssvzn IPOH PENGENALAN Im adalah saru Iayuan mg dilailkan oleh PIain|fl—P\nmM (emadap salu kapmusan Mzhkamah yang mar. mambanarkan Nous Pelrnahonan Devwaan di Lammmn 1 unluk sam Panggzmungan penaksanaan danlatzu dw biwlh Marsh 45 Kaedah 11 Kaedih-Kaadih Mlhkamah zmz (KKM) dengan kes ‘to [allow me ave!!!" D: dalam Lampm 7 nersenm, cmenann tzelnh memahan untuk pennlehperinlah benkul 7 1.BaI1awa sagalc Pwsxdmv penaksmsn semusa dun/emu pmstding /anjumn pert.-zksansalv Fsnnluh/Penghnkfrvlun bsrmnkh an/11/2022 diganlungkan den/alau ditangguhkan xemanlaru memlnggu kepulusun dun/alau pelupuxun mukfamad pmmmg bl:-Ira pwmn Wm Samar: bsrlankh mas 2023 (Lampm 1) ohm Deflmdan m Mahksmsh finggr Mar-ya dr /pan merarm Gunman sw No AA-22NCvC-27- 05/2025, 2 Tiada kos belkamaalv dungan psrmahnnan mi, dsn w UrdVMwxEkNVKUkACxU!A -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm 3 Bus [us perm!-alv ram dan/alau sslarqulnyu yang wajar den sssv-Ii. Mahkamah menan msmbsca dan menelm perrnnhnnzn can kenas kaula bemnnn hermasuk kesmula Afidavn-Afldavw din Hwahan Benulis pmak Defandan dan P\aimi1-P\aimIl nmna mnnmnnm. yang ansenaknn, man memuluskan umuk membenaman nennunonan nevanuan dengan km ‘to follow the even!" mnu belganlnng xepaua klpulusan kes Respandenmevenaan dw Mahkamah rungg Gunman snm No AA—22NCvC—27—D5/2023 («mum . dnlam kas FAKTA KES I. Plalnm Panama ianu HLL Managunem Sdn em: Idalah sebuah Iylrlksl pengumsen bagi Pangkor Nunday Rama 2 Plain!!! Kedun uan Delendan adalah pengarah dun pumegang saham dw dzlam syankal Plavmf Penum PlamIlV—PIaImr1 1elah mem1aI|kan lindakan ml unmx menumul semmlah wang yang dikatakan Iemulang olah Dehnflnn sshanyak RM2ea,auo-cu yang mana mempekan plruaman flan/alau wang penuanuman yang gagax mbaynv Defend“ Fad: aunzozz pmakpmak |e|ah rnavakodkan Plnghakman Persetujuun dx umpnan 6 dangan kehadlran Dmuk-Dmak an hadapan Hakim Mlnkamah Sesysn Ipcll kefika nn 4. Delandan lalah glgal msmnluhi Penghakirrun Ingkar belkunaan dan P¥amnf memnlnkan tmdakan presiding kebankrapan dv Mahkamah Tmggw Shah Nam temndap Deoenaan syn umMmamvKum:.un warn sum ...n... wm be used m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum puns! fl 3 Selakal pemfailan palrnnhunzn mL Mr 5 Pada mszmy Defundan Ielah mamlfinkun aam lmdukan an Mahkumah 7'mQ§I Ipen (Gunman Sml Nu AAVZZNCVQZVV 0512023) unmk mangenapikan vangnaknnan Psvaewjuan Ielsabul. Sehuhungan dengan Daiendan memrnuxan pannmunan pangglnlungan par1a>oana3nInIdIMahkamnInni KES DEFENDAN 1 P1amM—PlzInI\f samasa rnemmkan saman mi‘ Poguamcnra yang oidaflarkln unmk mamxm Plamm-F\amm adman T/n Phnng 3. Associate: unn ugawn kenas kausa kes lermasuk Pangnamman Pevsmujunn udalan dflallkan men finua gunman oanaam Kamumannyn bamlah salu Nuhs Parlukarin Faguamcari anamn an Lampiran 1o yang mana T/II an Kch, $00119‘ zann 3 Partners temn menganmn ann seam. peguarn P|eInm~PIamtfl yang ham 2, T/n Plung 5 Aseocmes swan mma gunrnnn Defendan yang mana uecenann aflahh pemmk mnggax nnna guama berkenaan Delandan lidak pemah rnalantik alau menggzflkzn pekarja Iain lermasuk seurang peguzm bemama Law xnu Hem [Mr Low) sanagnn peguamcava di nnna gnaman T/n Hang a. Assoaalas Low man manna! poguarmzra di 1/n Phang A Amciam segak unnn 2015 Mr, Low lelah hadlr bagi pmak kedu:-dua Plamm bag: nnuan memkudkin Penghzkiman Fmannnan 4 lm neqnavana, Tln Fhzlvg G Anncialas yang man: pemmk lunggalnyu admah Defendzn sendm Ie\ah benindak flan mennankan syn UrdVMwxEkNVKukM:xu!A -ma Sum ...n... wm be used m mm n. nflmnaflly mm; dnunmnl vn mum pm fl (Indakan den kenas kausa belkanan kes Ini bag: pmak Kean:-dun Plalnnhnmmdap dm natanwan sandm. 5 oxen yang demiluan. kssemmhan permmlnn saman (ersehul mampakan sllu llndiksn dam vemuatan ynng man Iogik, (idzk wajar flan mm mervae1uuun Delendnn s Delundan menyalzknn terdapat salu kansplrzsw a. amava F\amlfl dan seomng bemama Onu Chm we. dw man; kahga—lIgI pmlk Im mu-n pemagang saham dx dawn Iyinkat maxnw Penamn Ssbelum \ wanuan. Flamnf-PIIVM dam on: cmn Wew Dada bulan Mac zazn man mennnaaaangan. Parjanjian Pemegang Saham dan sum mam Amanah yang menymakan perilusan Viahm Dedendan amen 5"/.. 1 Namun, alas paisun dun ugman dnnpada P\zmIii—P|ainIi1 dan ong Chm we. Defundan tanpa mama Mah manzndilzngil Peqarman mg: yang man: many-rmn u-mum Densnuan dinatkkln meruadi was a Sslsrusnye ueaenaan man mam keedlsn mpensnmn: oleh mereka aanrenau uscara salah nyala 1/nmmlenzry mxsrepmenma; Ielall memasuki Penghaklman Fersgmjunn berkenuan xss PLAINTIF 1 neéenaan apaapa ketevangan msnnnwkkan sckvanya uacanaan benzya di dallrn ks: marsh an Mahkamah Tlnggw‘ kewlusan belkenaan akan menjaau Ms-ma dan wzng pengnasnrnan xekwanya man «man: kspadu plamm akan gngal memberikan unruk sw LlrdVMwxEkNVKukM:xu!A -ms Sum IHIWDIY wm be used m mm u. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm gugal dlpermehl samma men Defendan sekinanya Pengnakmn Persetujuan belkenaan ndak mgamungkan penukunmnya 2 Defandnn hanya msngemukakan dakwun palsu oemenaan Penqhaklmin Pmemuan herkanaan mpemxem secala lidak oamw an dengan urlsummsur pikszan yang man: FWMW mengmuahkan sebagav karul dzn bukan saw keadnan islwmwa umuk mambenzrkzn um pengganlungan peflaksunaan penmah 3 Pemlallan kcs oevenaan jug! bukanlan saln keauaan Islnwewa yang mewajarkan salu psnggnnlungan puriiksannn 4 Parmuhonan ml nukaman wemm yang bona fide dan my. sam Dermklran lerksmualan Auam KEPUTUSAN Kua-n-xna-n Mahlxamah 2n1z mempanmlukkan dw bawah man 45 xuaan 11 mm: mum Penghaklmin «mam» Muhkamah, mam plhik ying amsnm Penghakwun beokenaan dnbenalkan umuk memuhnn unmk sum penggamungan peliaisanzan Penghakuman berxenl n dlrlplda Mahknmah Di flallm M !m r A 1 ML: 251 , Muhkamah Persekuluan belih memumsnn pvms4p-pnnstp penmdangan herkenaan pannbhonin panggsnwngnn pefllksanaan penghaklman sepem benkul.— w 4" wow mu not own. .; . my Mexmltrou Myles! In: mm so may: rm patamounl mnsmemn-m qwemvrrg an wuhmbwv R1 ., slly afsxsmflmn V! m my award ,5 mm court. « mznssful should not be rmmerad nugmy rr upon mm .u m mavnm mm m. mm wmex :0 me mnduson 1/my .n my wwfid be ran-‘tang nugllovy mm me mum «(.5 stay m mm mtemn prusevvutrarv um: [nan 4 mm 5 N LlrdVMwxEkNVKukM:xu!A mm Sum IHIVVDIY WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum puns! wmny am - lily or 9.... emu mompmm mu! mu be: me cam ol mammmng Mn um and mm 7 m; m mm us many /nus max my mnsvmnu st-«cw ewzumikannea and m. rm mu u. gang:/wmuduruvmndmaguolyrlumnlyw xruvevmiumvnnnllmmmmone m msmtafnpatryklqxsem . shyupawulranrxnul . mfiuvummumlacnmmumxm mm mm 1:; 1-». mm .. on Mr plvcontr In nwromlvlte the .m..m mum mmmmune: 1.7 wvy we mm as my ahlscmon Thu mm mus: mm In m. unlomomam am migemoni Thsy nwa! a. mom m M mm mg»: m wwan am laubcawn [pans 23; - DAPATAN MMKAMM seam Idalsh uapman Mahkamlh bukenaan parmahoman (u Mallkamah bunettuu mgan hupahan blhawa neéeodmnataman Olen yang aamikan, «mam hal nu. Mankumlh busequju dengan oevenuan Mahkamah menduk kepuda was Anmna summi Inn All v clue Bank 1 Anal mm 1 cu 1:: yang menyltakan sepem :nnkur- -/23] On me um mm 4 r Muss 2 mm ms me-swpury writ mm an mm pmd "wmdmnan! sum mlmsdruloiy rm, me rum panypays mm lhqmlynlam sum, mu Menard! an uupsal. ma mdmnm sum has to be unnm rn. pfienmnvnpphcnnt mm was and ma iudun-am am, my Ions: mtumwg It to ma dnfvmanl/ruwonflunt The lama: are nuw named and ma nslandanl new has In rw proceodmgs In Iocovor Dru [udgmml sum nus mnhsrsa amwmsmncv use larvmmaunlmdspflvinglna ammonium pany maimns Mm: mum- sw UrrJVMwzEkNVKL1kA£:u1A «-um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! Dalam kn mu. Mahkumah zmpenaapax sam penngalmmgan perlaksanazn aualan gem. can wajar mbavium unmk memamlkan seldranyi Defhndan—De1endan berjaya as dslsm ku mevekl di Mahkimih Twnggu mus qua masih Iagi terjlga dan mum ndak perlu membusl pennonouan-pemwnonan penamnaan unluk manaapanxan semula warm merda. Sekurznya Dafemian gage! an dalam K55 memka an Mahkamah Tinggi, P\am|IV bclamzh menunlul wing berkenun nanpaan Defends»-Defandan kelik Oleh yang aamman, atas zlasan in: Mzhkamah lelah mambanarkan psrmohnnsn Defienflin-Daiandan unluk sulu penggznlungan peliaksanaan di dahm Lampuan 7 Dmngknt umuk pammbangarl Vang An! Ham. Mahkamall Ymggx % (NILMIAH BINTI vusor) Haknm Mahkamah Suyen I907!‘ Fenk 21 12.2023 sw LlrdVMwxEkNVKukM:xu!A -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VII mum puns!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-22NCvC-165-11/2022

PLAINTIF INTERGATEWAY FREIGHT SDN BHD DEFENDAN SAM KAR CHYI

Claim by company (plaintiff) against a former employee (defendant) for debt owed by a customer of company – Whether defendant was negligent in generating invoices to the customer – Whether defendant caused the loss of the debt owed by the customer to plaintiff – Whether damages too remote – Whether plaintiff has exhausted its legal remedy against the customer.

14/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=85a86dc4-9368-46ee-bd24-31d44b2b14d6&Inline=true

14/12/2023 15:35:39 PA-22NCvC-165-11/2022 Kand. 265 S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal u—22ncvc—155-11/2022 Kand. 255 14/12/2022 13:25:39 in ine High com oi Maiaya In Fenang in me siaie oi Fenang, Malaysia 35 wn22 Intergaieway Freight Sdn she Plalnlifl And sam Karcnyn . Delendarvl Gmunoe ofJui1gmenl in reduction 1 This IS a claim by an employer ine PlaIn|if1("F') against its former employee me Deiendanl (“ow ier a sum oi RMI,357,429. The said sum VS owed by a customer ol P, one sanmme-sci Systems (Malaysia) son Bhd (“Slllrllillfj After a full ma|‘ \ dismissed P's ciaim Here are the grmmds oi my iudgmenl Bacggwund lag; 2 n was an employee oi F iron. 3 4 zen, working as an “Officer - Aaoounie ax Cuslomer semoe- He was In cnarge oi P's ousiomers. amongsiomers, Sarimma's eeeouni. sannnna IS a muMi»na|ionaI company that has been engaging P‘: servmes Since year 2am to dale P considered sannuna as one oi us mam cusmmers 3. n was Iranslerred in me payrou oi Hana Mahamega Sdn and on 27.9 2022. He ienaerer: ms resignation a iew days iaier on 2.10.2022 with Immedlale eflect Boin P and Hana Mahsmega son Bhd are owned by i=w—1 (Executive Directnrof P) Pw—1 I5 me m4auridem!F, |ogelherwim ins wire 4. Tnree days aiier D's resignanon, P‘s sohcliors Issued a lener oi oemano oaieo 5102022 against n In mai ieuer, P ckaimed inai D‘s nsghgerioe WI generaling Irwmoss io sennnna heo eeuoea F’ io suller ‘an eslimalad forecast iose oi revenue oi RM1 milhon tentatively F’ iunner siaied inai ii ‘shaH (ry lu veouver and iii: an necasary am: In wmpliance io ine sennoe Le»/5! Agreement‘ m xszunwirnuuiuuusyxuiv «we. a.n.i luvihnrwm be met! a may he nflmnuflly MVMI dnuamnl VI muria v-ms! 5 Tna alorasaid Iellerof demand was not aehverett to D at that pawl 01 Mme D stgtttea tne letter lor tne cyst |Ime when tt was turntsned by P‘: opunset tn D‘! oounset after the commencement at the tnstant suit 6 Less than two months later‘ P insmuted the instant sutt agamst D on 29112022‘ ctayntng a sum at RM1,357,429 Dunng the tnal, tt was dtsctcsed by P's subpoenaed wttnsss. PW-A lvum Sanmma, tnat P had accepted a sum or RM74(-L945.6E oflered by sanntina as tun and anal settlement at the actuat sum awed. The F-Iatntttrs case 7 P ctatms that V! has stmered a loss at RM|.357,429 due In Us negligence to submit tne Invotces mu) Sanmma‘s pans! known as ens Ths was In have been done wtt 180 days Imm tne relevant delivery dates, ID enabte Ssnmtna to make payment P aHeges that D had (filled to demand payment lrum Sanmtna and to ensure tnat payment IS made P turtnar alleges that n caused the toss to P on purpose Tne Dalsndanfs case :3 Us case ts lhls (:1 P has clatmed payn-snt tnun Im wrung puny The sum ov RM1t351,02v I! owed ny Samntnata p :2 shtmld nm ctannett me said sum «mm Sunmma ‘Much ts stun wtthln Ilmb In ctatm. tn) :3 V5 Hm nnvy up no pantmtuat lliingamlm tntwsan P and sanntna u up ml the person mp antuyud tna semoea pmytaaa py P tp sannnn. peflatnmg to In mt sum MRMI 357.429, (c) n cartnu| be hem llspcnsvlfle to aniuve tnat paymenl ts made by Sanmtna mat a not a tsnn tn D's|m1eI at antptpyntsnt tt VS unreasonama tnat an emplnyee nas In guavlntet payment betng matte Dy (ha smplvysrs custpntan ta) D13 nltlher awnve nannnmntat that liver: Isa ttntnatm pemd cl tan days In Clitm pnymem lmm Sanmtnat am te} 5- has Iatled ta hku reasonable steps to rntnpats th pulvuflod lass pt RM‘tJs1m nalton Issue for an xGZahWtY7buWDH\JSysAJ1u 2 «ma s.n.t nuvthnrwm be u... a may t... nflmruflly -mm: dnuumnl y. mutta p-mat 34. P could have sent more s|afl |o hexp om m generanng me mvolues on Sanmma‘s OTIS Dorm. PW-2 (Cuslomer semoe Manager pi Pb «esurved that u would be auue easy for anomar sxaw to learn me job. ‘o I: m mam: Ia Veanw A No a New n I may ask. Muss new, mm mucmlme you lake up Iaam axmum iYI1um7 crsx synam A Abun half day 0 ma new, new I waulfl we up veierm on An aavypms. have ywu evev suagesled In your mg‘ Mr cmanvg Ia asswan we workers ov more empbyees to new om Sam? A Yes - 35. However. not only an P van lo pu|addII\0na}sl2If1 on me job, P lulled up rswaee a depsmng snan who was working on Sanmxnds ens penal D lsslmed as lollows m re«exammanon. -0 Much ohhged My Lord lhankywu I'm ready wnm my n.>exam.naupa Enclk sam, says aaa behevspa soelan unmk m\n|a Enclk Sam bua| venmasan Soalan panama sayay (am psauamcara P\aml\l ada cadannkan kapada Encwk Sam bahawa dalam mus: lampoh tahun zms uhmgga 2022, hunyahh Enclk sam yang mm unluk macam mxni pakaw cvsx ppm dan pwivnn Enuk sam adahh (Id-k satum Euler: rnlnng Enuk Snm ;e|.|sk.an swans um yam lahu aunaw A Tahun zme, masa an 0 Speak «me me, sneak up me me sm Tahun 2D18.masaAlu Mawls up can Ar-we Mm akan lzhu danu mam: crs: aamngga Mapg-. Valak jawmany hanyl aaya aangan Angle um sap (nhu ' 35. mm, PW-1 (Execuhve D|rec|oro!P)at1mmed lhal n \s very common In have huge outstanding sum owmg by as customers. P would manage me si|uaImn by engagmg wv|h me cusmmev In me present case hawever, F appears up be taking a son approach m dealmg mm |hIs parliculav cusmmery sanmma. And Instead go ham on us former employee. D. 37 PW-1 tarsufled as (allows m rsexanunauon. 1: Mr Chnong rm gmngm ask yau severll aueamaa bsckwhereby were ynu have rm-Igreed woman the snauamema or auesunns mm were asked lay my learned Mend oxay. Ihe msl auesuon .5. you were menen up hurvme amp, pumxe 5195, 9899 am), and yen wens man rmsrmd la page m Now, \e| me say me stalemem um, am mem wm ask you «a axwalnta ma Own Whal you we at page we py you look back mining mm 299 man |un:<:lIp| xmwaen yau Ind ma Delewdanl. ynu were asked me. .a Mnggne. you answered Maggie us me exemlwe handlmg SanmIms‘s account Well m am xszunwwvwawunusyxmv “ «ma. a.a.y...y..yym..p....amy...mm-y.,~.m.a.a.y.m..auya W 2019, and yuu were rererrea In several lines or corwsrsalmn uamerneny ‘Mvuuby Sam ws gmng re lag erong wnn meagre, em -nen rarer n was asked er yuu nun ngree men er men nrne senrrnne owed ynu eune suhslamnal mnney, mmwzs me quaslmn and ynu unegreee Can you axplam why yuu mseureea wnn ma|sV.a\amen|1n\heCnun7 A our rneunry we luvs 01:: very mmmamy we du commumula hm n aeesnu rueuy walled mer mere rs nerrnng re do wan r msun one scenanu. rrurn me In nnre we have delay m payment: we me erneunc or hundred lhousann we have rrorn urn. In Mme‘ so we vary aomman rur us to ga| spnrepuayra 9v (5 and ln: ln mscuss nvmh me chem in em mern in pay an unre So‘ In vary wmmnn espeeieuy rne Ipgrsnes mdunry‘ 35 Fuunn, P is slalulomy reqwed to prepare and submit annua\ euanen accounts In rne Cumpames Commission or Mewayera Vn rne course ol preparing me financial sialemenls, P would have areeeverea |hs low uaymem received fmm senrnine. 39 Under cross exarnrnaoon, PW—1 Ieshfied aslounws. ~o Nnghl And yeur company mu pupil: me euerrea srecernen: every year, \sn‘( \l’7 we have veurucmunre audited every year vee, we nnue And you would have also murmured are revenue and (he payrnem, rne oumandxng paymenflnryuurcuslamers amass lhe board, eurreca prnuw Yes sepeeeuy ynur majnr eusmrners, you nave 3, pm mw yau meminnedu one an men. rs sennnne Yes You wank! have pay dun mnnen to me nneumpuey Yes‘ >9» >0 o>o> 40 In the civcumslanoes, P nea every opponunny re rake rememel ecnen and lo pursue ms oulslandmg rnvmees Irorn Sanmlna However, P sat on us ngnrs and dwd nm pursue me oulslandmg mvowoes dmgenuy {mm senrnrna F cannor now Mame D hr us purported loss (h Tne Deiervaanx us no; any In one cantraclual ansngemenl belween the F\amW and sen na 41 Anomer reeeon why u canno| be held Iable var P‘s purponed loss cl RM1,357‘429 re because D was no\ privy In the cnn|raI:1 between P and Sanmma Thus, the alleged rec days urne period for invorcrng agreed upon belween P and Sanmma cannol be wnvoked agamsl D srn xszenwrwuwunusymtg 12 “Nana s.nn nmhnrwm .. med e may r... enmnuuly mm: dnuamnl VI mum WM 42. In Glnmac Amancs 5:11: am V Nardm an M1 Zam [2023] 3 Mu 393. me Cuurl of Appeal said -1531 7h: lbunco or-pr-viryutsannasmmmn mm um plimtmznd me dcfbnd-nlundu ms Glumln ngmnmn and»: tho arrglnulng summons . non~tlnrnr Not only me pmnun nu no ms. ofacllon aualnrt MI umnuun mu nl.1o nu no neoursl aualnsl me defendlnl Imdnr ms Glomac aareemenx - 43 Bemg e snenger to me con(rac| between P and Sanmina, D cannot pnssmxy be new name to any conlraclual term In me said nomrac| on |up cl that, I acoepl that D was no| Inlormed ov me «so days term In me ennnacn There Is nu evidenoe proffered by F, save (or me auegen verbs! nuuficaucn by PWV1 44 Under cross exammalion, D Ieslmed as louows “<2 Encwk sam, Kamu sedar lak wade Iamm 2m, mule clan Iamm zm Enuk Sam ssdav (ak akan «snna Pambayarin mvuls Sanmml mm 130 mm? snnk Sam sednrlakurmi W7 mu lid: menguknx kelernngan Enmk Sam maxan Kali penama Enclk Sam aengar bemenaan flengan um nan W7 Masa (enma mlanvnalxm nan peuuann save Maksudnya mesa hndakan nuiman mldwawlkanlarfi Va >0» 0» 45 If al an me «so nays (arm ws snncuy enfmced m we eomznemax dealmg bemeen P and sannnna. P coma nave issued a wmpany memo, ernau or reminder wn wrinng to D and me other accuums peysnnnex P's accoums personne\ some have been specifically tasked In ensuve slncl comphanoe wnh me 130 days |erm Bul ms was not done, as admmed by Pw—1 In moss exammalmn. -a mm ‘ask an on has dc ym. agree wnn me man mrouwhuul me nenennnm working wI|h you smee 2on7 an me way unl\I2l122 nevove ns ressgnea non Hana Manamega you have nevev vemmded ms oeosnaam In wnnna on me can days term that you mermorvad nun nw nnpeaen by Sanmma You nave nevev senn armhlrvg .n wrmng (a me nevannanu. annual’ Conan Sn‘ nm In say «.2 .ennnn lhil ne ms not done er wnax am you have a\so neueHeH hm m wrmng max aunerwnanstwn eman. Ielxev. memo mat musl Dnmply sInr.I\yw1IhIfll) days uenn you nevev, \srv'| nv Nalmng m wmmg A Innh/12H vemaionh/' 0) sm xG1unww‘nuNuHuSyw1v ‘“ «me s.nn lunhnrwm a. met! a may he annnnn mm: dnuamnl VI .nnna em 45. Psmnsnfly. D had nerrrrer enjoyed nur trenemted from me servrces provrded by Flo Sanmma As the recrprerrr entre sard sennees, Sanmrna arerre hears the obrrgauon to pay P (or me servir-,es rendered. Thus. tne D|:r|Iga|ron rd pay me oulslandlng sum M5 wrrtr Sanmina‘ not D we purporled rose at RM1r3§7,42§ Is trre arrears or payment awed by sannrine tr has nalhrng rd dd wrtrr D ( The PI rrIn1[]§§ 9 gghgustad ns IE3! remedy agarnsrsenrrrrne 47 P donrplerns that D not demand payment trern Ssnmrna wrlhrrr rao days trdrn the rerevarrr derrvery dares, resurtrng In e loss at RM1r3§‘/‘A29. However, I|sppearslha\ P rrrrgmsrrrr have reeerrree agarnsl sannrrrra rn respect or rrre omsranding sum I agree wrlh D that F nae no| exhausted i|s legal remedy egernsr Ssrrmrrra 48 P and Sanmrna had entered Irrlo a Master contracr luv Lngrslrc Servrces on 1 2 2015 and 1.32021 respectively. It provrdes as follows r2 zrar Service Pmvlosr MU us: rensnrrahle mrrrnrererar errors to praum compists and count! Irrvovnes rd smwr rm Servroes wrtnrrr "my (30) day: D1 rne dsrlvuy rmtre enrrre shtpmenl ar desrrrratron mwlnn prmemad mar lhan one hundred ergh|y(1W)flays hum rne dale at ihrpmunt wrrr rro| be accepled or paid: nor wrrr semce Provlder aooepl crarms for averpnymerrls one hundred and ergnty days tram Drum rne date ul shipment‘ A9 PW-4, rtre srrpgry crrarn Prqea Manager trorrr senrrrma. rrrenrrdned |haI\herr180 days crarrse in me contrar-,x Is governed by cerrvorniarr state Law. -u verr arw rerd rne com um yflu have seek regal ad»/rue en rnre mallur an 150 days rerrn when ynu were asked vr you were ewere mare murd be 3 hmtlmlmr era years and ydu caurd 61I\lc\aIm,nghl’V A Yes o wrret have you bean eevreedv A we ned been advlud hy the Iiwfiml Ihal searne tnar the oomvad our wu true rn place etpreeery ereree rner rne enroreernenr D! ms wmmcl wrrr De based an Carflnmlnn srate Law so, we raw firm rner advrsed Us sure advised us trrer me Iyprcar eeemeen er rne Mlrayuirr cedn System rs rrrar rt wrlr rru| seek Ioenfovce cm regererren erenmnerrdnedrmn wrrrch rrre um competent in srriovcl Sc Vrke rn lhns case the odrr|rac1 re med an Calflumnn Sm: Law rrr nmlltev words, rnrr rawyerwld us rnerrne law rrrrn mud us met r| re urrlrkely rnar rnar wnttacl wrrr ac1uaHy be brrrdmg Iegardress at whatever tne Marzyslarr begar syitnm sly: » su. rrr sunrrrrssrorrsr D erred tne cede 0| Crvrl Pmdedure or calrrornia and argued trret ttre rrrnrtertron period Is lour years em xszenwrwruwuwsysaurg ‘I “Nair e.n.r luvrhnrwm be mad e may r... nflnrnnrrly mrnrn dnuavrml VI .rruNa vmur Secilan :37 Wllh\l1'a|lYy¢3Vs (la) An anrm upon any mnlrad, eoluarlen or lranrllly rounded upun an lnslrurnenl ln wnllnd. exoevl as Dmv-den In secllon 3362. Wovldedr lnal lne llme wllhm wnlcn any amlun lor a nll:M?Y ludernenl lor the balance due upon an ool-gallon luv me nay-nenl cl wrncn a deed ol (run or rnclwage wrln pvwev cl eale uwn real pvopsrly ur any lnlenul lnerern wu glven an eeednry, ldllowrne lne exercise or lne pawer ul eele ln such deed ohms! ar mangage may be bmugm shnll um exlead beyond mree manlhs after me Mme or sale under such deed nl (ms! or nwngaoe ~ 51 D eonlends lrral P's clslm agalnsl sanrnlna IS nol llrne barred, even ln llle oomsxl ol celllorrllen slale Law slnoe (our years have not elapsed at me lllne wnen P lnalnuled me lnslam sull on 29.11.2022. Bul I am reluclanl to accept D's contenliun when nu evidence, ln pamcular larelgn expen legal opinion. nos been adduoed on one polnl 52. Conversely no-wever. ll nas nor been proyen by P lrlel lls c ldr me eulalandlng sum agalnel Sarlmlrla ls llnre barred. olner lnan me bare aseenron ol ewe, P dld ndl prerler any eyldenee lo ealalallen lnal ll IS precluded ncrn clalnnng me oulelandrng sum lrdrn Sanmlna by vlrtus 0! me 180 days dause 53. under Malayslan law, me llrnlralion period to alarm a debt arlslng «mm a oenlrecl ls 6 years. (see secllon 6(l){a) ol lne Llmllallon Acl 1953) A eonlreclual prdylslon wnlen seeks lo Impose e llnnlallon perlad ol 150 days ls argueoly yold oy lllrlue 01 seellon 29 ol lne Corllracls Ael 1950. As >1 would nave lne ellecl at llmlllng lne lllne wllnln wllleh a parly may enlorce I|S rlgnls lo pursue a dem (See lne coun emppeal case e1 MEI Irlsurarls sdn EM v Lerrlbaga Perlyaluan 5 Pemulihan Tanah Persekuluarl (FELCRA) [2005] 2 MLJ 393). 54. Pmllng asrde lhe gdyernrng law, me laels suggeel lnal sanlnlna nan nol slrlcfly enldrced lne 150 days eleuee ll la nolewdnny lnal sanrnlna nad ncl releaed P's clalln hack ln November 2022 wnen ||'le rnslanl sull was filed lnslead, sanlnlna had requesled P10 send ln lne lnyoloes and supponlng docunrenls lor yalld ‘ purpose Thls neppened wnen P nolllled snnrnrna dune unpard lnvorces yle en enrarl daled 17 10.2022 55 II ls evldenl mal Sanmlna was eooperallye. Tnere la nu docunrenlary eyldenoe shuwlng sannllna Iaklng lne slance lnallne servlces whlch were nul ollled wllhm 180 days were rejecled or no longer clalrneole by P on me conlrary. Sanmirla requesled P lo suornll lne lnydlces lcr semces lhal were rendered more men 130 days ago. rn xszenwlwluwuuusywlv ‘5 «er... e.n.l luvlhnrwm be u... e my me annnnn mm: dnuavlml VI .nann Wm! 55 ms was mnlrrmed by Fw—1 (Exec-Auve Dvector of P) under cross examinaliun -0 And M rm meyara vary pppp-rams, they sml askyouu) send u. hard cupy mvmces lov rnarn to vnvwy Ian vl’7 A Yes a rney navnr stun yuu amne door mm m. hogmnmg. mrvecl or nprv may as vury mavenanve A on, yea “ 57 As well as by pw—2 (cusuunar sannae Manager of P) in cross exammanon. -o wm I meanns men -n uavernuarznzz. suununa asked you up send rn EH meirwo\ces.oorrec1’ Yhal .3 mm paid A Yes 0 And sanrruna has not Iepemed 1|‘ may um vaquusl yau Ia send In ma mvnwex, puuem A vea 0 And as lav as you knaw ma new, pevore um mselmg am. there Is no single: wmtsn arm. I mu say mere rs no single emml «rum Senmlna say man nucause yuu have me Plamlm has mil clmm Var (he mu wunu. «ea dayn. so sanrruna wm not pay Thara u m sun‘)! ernau Isn‘l :1 «mm SIHMIM7 A ves no" 58. ll ts nalewonhy that mere were pravrous uccasiuns where sanrmna aooaplsd P's mv s \ha| were more than 130 days pm. This was confirmed by PW-I Imdev cvoss examvnallon. ‘Q Mngm Look at page :0, u. we nmaue pan‘ ms ernau rs sum by suzana up Sam dale 09 as zoza Jus| refler up a law Imus with ma Vnvnloe dale. 25 07 201¥,you :aw:|7 Allhe mum pan, mare ran nramm, naru-.» The nun ohnvmcasy rm Iookmg a|Ihe1\Is\ anu second hue man, you saw ‘I’? A vea o 25 07 2019, man we swarm one Vs 3101 2019 mu nu ma rnvmcas, nihfi corramv A corrau cu can you new max 31015 dale agam‘ um beyond 130 aayp, mu! m A vea- 59 Fmm me evrdenoer Sanmma has not In wrmng vemmad P's claim. even urui the tnal oi the ms'anl sun There re no err-an or Keller from sanrrnna much bars P's claun for mvuloas that are aVder lhan 150 days On me mncrary, SarImIni‘s Vetlel dated 12.4.2023 appears in be dlolnmatic and um coarcwe an nature u reads srn xGZuhW\Y7iuNDH|JSysI.Hg '5 “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm be u..a a my r... unun.u-y mum: dnuamnl VI mum p-mar “Disputed mums» Desi Mrcnoono, Further tn uur wmpamu‘ ream wiresvwldericiu regarding the disvuled invoices associated wnn freight semoes pmvnded helween Oaohev 20t9 ano sepiemoer 2022. we are wmino In pay MYR 749,945 as tin increase oi MVR 125,257 731171 exmanne for :5 MI release otzii pzymenuoianeo claims - 50, P had accepted Sanminds offer |0 pay a sum 07 RM749,945 38 H seems tn me that P's acceptance oi a lower sum IS motivated by a desire to not oiieno a mator customer sno risk losing their business. ms was admitted as much by PW—1 A I think I have anlwamd i|, I have no nplinn. ill in me mxsie¢ services aoieemeni smeo cienrty ii‘: ourtaiiule ta on them wnnm me siiooisxeo no may: and may have ail me ngius no: to pay us as one Two aui valid chem, do we want to oneno our client and kvst uli me busmessei tor ins Mare’? 1 wili ratheviust luliuw this as iona as ITS ieasnnabla than we have this close - 61 W P chooses to aooept a Inwer sum (mm Sanmina, that is its Drerogative, But F‘ Cannot View turn around and seek to make D Viabie [or the balance rernaining sum. Obviously, Dis an easy target As compared to the corporate might oi an important customer, e2. Pseems to have no qualms ill pursuing the outstanding amount owed by San na trom its turmer employee, D. But i wouia not oonoone sucn oppressive cunduct Move so, wnen P has not been consistent m its stance, as seen below 63. Through its iawyers. F had Issued a letter otdemarid dated 5,10 2022 against D. in the letter 0' demand, F explicitiy stated that It needed In address the matter with Sanmma in accordance with the Service Lavsi Ageenent ‘Nmicn or intvit ta iristitntt iugal Iiilidn for gross nsgngsnoo ano tnilure Ia omonn duly onoaniiy 3 As suon nur onem has instructed us In irilaml me: .n we event me amount sum that you have tailed, neonoeniiy oi onnueo -n veflmmirifl youvouwomnsnny Vmich were oi within your versoriat knowiedqe, iemams oumsnomn ano uwmfl ulwriich our ciierit rhali lrytu iaoovei ano oo aii nacnlarya-:15 In compliance to the Service Law Agieamam, in «nu mnt, wrc rit snsii nono yau name tnrnli amount owing ano uutxtanding, oosu and exnarisul ansmo out oi and >71 relahari thereta “ sm .ezmwnn.a.onus,nu«o " «an. a.n.i...n.Wns.u...omy...mnn.ny.,nn.o.a.n.n.o..nuna vlmxi 64 Never\he\essy mere we no eyrdenue to Show that P had attempted to recover the culslandmg sum lmm sanrnina m or around October and Navernber 2022 Insuaaau F mea me ins\an| sum ‘us! aver a month anar sending the avarernanunnaa vane: or demand And n womd aeenu wmlsl negnnalnons were ungulng beiween F and Sanmlna E5 Premised on \he above. I oonsmer F‘s aclmn m Ming the instant sun agamsl u as premalure and oppresswe. To my mind, P has not exhausled the necessary slaps to cwanrn llom Sanmma. Vnslead, P commenced this legal acnon agamsl D Io claim In! me payment owed by Sanmma d Doublgrgpvem nolgerm ed as F Inmaled this Vegal acnnn against n clalmmg a sum cfRM\,351.429y being Ihe purpnned wuss suaarau by P The claim sum carresponds to me outstanding amount owed by Sanmma Durlng lheIHa1 I surfaced Ihak Sanmma had sveady paid some ponmn of the oulslandlng sum to F. And womd he pmgrssswely paying lurlher amaums to P 57 F'W—A (Supp\y cnam Pro;ec1 Manager or Sanmlna) leslmed unuer cross exammahun mat sanrnma has earnrniued |o making a payment ol around RM75o,nuo -0 Ir yau wank n| me smounl approved hcre. wl you wera In add up RM357.73367 mus RM33Ey28234y we win came up to ma ngure av RMs§7.0160Ion7y am am rmw you an rnenuon ma appruvsd amount vs amuna RM74s,uon, :0 where .5 Ihe balance ova-auna saw Already pawn bocauxe me man Rwwyuou naymenl lhey are rnana pmgrasmexy Q: 1 as A 50 dlmnu nna ma whsn this emu was seru. n omy lists dawn (hose wwmoes which was ml yel part‘! so wn omar words cm: Vs ‘nu aulslandmq that make up lhe 150k 0 5:) ma bahnni an ever have been paid bu P\am|\l1 axraaayr A vs! a B-11 Plannml saw that they never reoewe any paymenl, are you aware or Ihaw A x was mlurmaa um may naye mu raeewaa pay-mam, yes. and ms Is 0 So wmch Vs mum wnamar have been pan mum saw or how’ A Payment definrlew have new mad: hm an Ihis palm m mm x wuldru answer me quemun ol haw much have aaen paw because niymerfl rs made progresswew 0 So aannnary (her: a some paymsn|maoem1ho Flawmfl aveedy/'7 A Defimwy yes 0 Okay But you are no| sure abaulme aemna aa how much am al\ man A Allms new rn Mme, no‘ ldnn‘\ know the exact number am xszanwrwtuwnuusymtg “ «mu. am.‘ ...yu.rym a. met! a my u. nflmruflly mm: dnunmnl y. mum v-ma! 63 Based on me documentary evidence‘ Sanmmél had ottered to pay RM769.945 as tn excrtange tor a tun release at an 'aayment-retated ctatms' Sarvllma ctd not spactty In tts afler letter dated 124.2023 oonoernmg tne reason my me oatance amount ts not pad. The |enn ‘dispuled tnvotoes“ assuctated WM! height semces pmvided bemsen October 2019 and septemoerzozz, as stated in sanm a's tetter, ooutd bear yartous meamng And not due to me 130 days hme bar, as attegec by F. as In hghl ot mas develupmemy RM5D7.A83 31 In I\s submisstuns In ropty however, P ctatmed a sum ot RMoo7.739,so. By my catcutatton, the batance sum ts RM6fl7y483 32 Atter deducltng tne setttement sum ot RM749.945 as trom lhe ctmm sum ot RMI.357,429. 70 Doucte recovery ts nol permtttad tn taw tsee tne court or Appeat case u1 Mak Sfew wer y Yeah Eng Kong a other appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 253) P quite senstbty tactored in the setttement sum paid by Sanmtna Aflhough there seems to be some contuston over the correct amount to be deducted. But regardtess wttettter tt be tne tun ctatm sum or a reduced sum‘ my conctuaton rsmatns that D ts not ttaate tor the balance amount unpatd by Ssrvmna 71 P rmgh| be upset about D's sudden resignatton Perhaps D could be tautted tor not gwmg sumcient nottce ot ms resignalton P may well he entttted to ctatm tor payment WV lieu ot noltoe agamsl D But Io attempt to make D ttaote tor Ihe culslandmg sum owed by Sanmtna smacks or ytndtcttveness Cuncmstun 12 Fov the reasons above, 1 (Ind that P has not pruven W5 case on a batance ol pmbabtlmes. I ttterevore dtsmtssed P's claim 73. t ordered P to pay costs at RM35.aou to D This lakes trtto account a slnkmg out apottcatton med by D was Enclusure 7, which was dtamtssed wI|h costs tn me cause Dated 20 Nnvember 2023 rn xszertwtwtuwwusywtv '9 «nu. s.n.t...n.ryn..u....umyu.unnnuu.mn.uua.n.ny..nuua v-mat 4? Quay Chew Soon Juage Hxgh Court of Mama, Penang own Dlvlswcn NCVC 1 Caungyg Jams: am Ts: wen, kavulyn Yip Vu Mmg and Kim) Poh Chye (Mnssrs Aamm .4. Ca) same mama Nan Um W91 Luvv (Must: Shannen Lee a co; Iurma my-us.“ sm xszanwwvuwnnusystutg 2“ «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 9. The wssuss m be Tned’ are-Inal case managemenl documem that was filed by ma pamaa listed a mynsd av rasuss. I Ihmk me crux oi the case can be dushlled |o one pnncrpan Issue. Name\y. wnsmer the Delendam has caused me loss al RM1,a57,429.uo owed by sannuna lo the Warnlwf‘ (r e wem no a or me ‘Issues to be Tried‘ dnoumeni). And related |o that, ‘whether me Delendam can be new name for ma sum ov money owned by Sanrnma to me Plarnm (Le nem no 9 ollhe ‘wssues to be Tned‘ aocumsnu 10 My answer Is nu‘ tor lhe loHowmg reasons: 1:) n rs mo rarnms for F be dawn (ml :2 ma named P‘: vurvnnsd Ian .n ma rum RM1‘357.4Z9r (I17 D was rrm vvwy no me aarmacx belween P and Sznmmz‘ and me anagaa 150 days Mme venod lur mvmawr (c) P has not axhauslad na Vega‘ vemody iga It Sxnmma. and (:1) name recovery rs nm pemmlcd 11 Here Is my explanahon. a Rgmuleness or damages I2. I agree ‘MI?! D that it \s we lemme for P lo dawn that D had caused F‘s purporled loss m the sum RMI,357,A29 P bears are buvden Dfpmving causation and quanlum ol loss \n my opinion, P has not proven that D caused the purported loss 0| RML35‘/.429 13 In 0550 Bank (M) and V Fm/mk Markatmg Sdn and am anornar appeal [2023] 2 MLJ 351, me Cmm ml Appea\ naxa 7:57] We carmotbulagms wrlrv Im IPPCIIJIIL nmrg vvihulad M: ma/uy or III: awaance An MI: appear The Hrgn Cam! «en rnlu ermr when r! accepted me nmourvl afloss ufiayauly sunaraa by ma respondent whrch ma teamed 4:: sara had Dam avervexfwhen no such evrdenee was pmmsu lo msxanzrars sum New And no! my mat, Ion even where were mm mm (wwch Mr find urvmmn; sum mass: or uamag-s wen clnny non rumor: tn nm Bun caused by me appsnarn [1531 w. mun amphaslu mar s um 17! ms Conlrucls Act 1950, as as: ml amen marry pmvrdss ma: smr zampnnnilon Is not to as given for any rarnrm or mdirlrl loss or dlmlyt sufllnd on amount aims breach V 3 sm xszanwrwsuwuuusywtv “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. U... a may r... mn.u-r -mm: dnuamnl VI murm war 14 I acknowmige that D. as an employee, awes a oon\rar.1uaI my m P as his emplnyer But I see no causatian bexwesn me wnlvacmal duty owed and the purported loss o1 RM1 357429 sunsred by P 15. sennune nas been a mayor cuskzmer at P since year 2018.Sanmma nes conslslently mnninucea sngnfllcam revenue to P P had assngned D us sonery lake charge 0! Sanmma‘s pomoho penammg «a me accounts 16 P V3 aware |haI D‘s h\ghBs| qualmcaucn us only SPM (Sull Pelajaran Mexayee), PW-Z (Customer Service Manager ov P) acknowledged mat, gwerl D's modssl Bducémorlal background‘ P should not expect Hells! penonnenee from n. nespue this knuwledge, P failed to supemse D‘s work 17 The volluwmg transpwed dunng me cmss exennnauan of F"W»2 -u Nnghl‘ Ihank yuu And Muss Lwewy an yuu nware ac uerenuaure quahfinzamnv A vee 0 Agree wne us sw |svu|’7 sm leaver A ves, agree u 50, nuguny Muss new. Ioglcauy Delendam‘: peflnrma/Ice hat in D: murmured desery lhmnghom his \enu.e mun me mmpany, do you iglae wwlh me7 Because you canmzl expecnhe Deaenazm to achvrve very nugn level peflumvanca A Yes.ma1‘s why wu gwe chance, x agree a So, ha ha: m as out unflera wry um mommrand gumence a\l(hIiw/fink. wIm:1 or new A Yes Q And m mu avsm a mu us any Imponanl penvoua u ta be ghven |o «ne Delendam, n u reasonable In have samaona In ovnrsee n.s work as wen amen? A Va: A: Now, you menhmed me: Im D-i5endnn| rs asked to nenae Snmmna‘s mevunl. yuu knuw wnu u Snnmmm A Yes a. II Sanmmi would you agree wnn me m Hy Snmmna is one ul your mum cuswmem A wyou are nenuumng dunng mm .s yes 0 Whul aboul zuzu unmmev A Thal nme us hecause we have me: my cuemmen, m n wm become no mngu u me mu.» nusmmsr rm sun unuu we |en :2 Undermv «em A we. 0 Just now Mr Choong w-I: nymg|ha||V1eP|a\rl1Mha52|n3mnIn nusmmevs nnmugneux we yams wnen me Delendanl Is wumng wm. Plamlnl, . a Jmm am In 2022, wuunu you auvee 2 xu : mam cnslumers vncmdmq $aNmna’7 A V“. lyre: sm xszunwxwuwnuusymtg ‘ «mu. sum nmhnrwm .. u... e mm u. nrwhuflly -mm: dnunmnl y. mum W so, Sanmwna pun1a\IoIum[u:runl" Yes And In; P\mn|rl1 nu my nuugnea me Deiendam to take charge on ms Wm ror Sammna nnrwnun. cmncl or mm yes, carved Wan, Irs my m chame on the finance van on the urnrng pan rr yuu are mammnmu me mrpmm arrangre-nun rs rum in Sam »<.rcnyr Nnuht. so for bfllmq u $50 an rmpmm awed rn deuIm9 win we mmmar, agus av d=sIgrse7 Yes‘ agree Boeuafly Snnmma .5 . mulunalmnal company. so may wank! exnecl samelhmg of pmpev nrsvandam mgmeve: km Mpeflomiance. you auroe mm me? Mme. And Plinmm has nsvev assume anyonn lo aurs1Dal5ndIn|m handlmg me Sanm us‘: bdlmg, :9.“ ard\s.Ig|ea7 Junyesm nu Duly A Ag-c Dy 0) o x_« on: 15. FW4 (Exemmve Durscior 0! F) insisted man D Is capabxe cl handlvng San na's pcrifoho by mmsell am «hex rs not name out by P5 awn perlormance apprarsax on D, where D was assesssd In as less man saurslactory Q: average, at best 19. The !oI\owmg nransprrea during the cross examinmion c1PW—1 “a New. comm hack Co on he 3 Mr C'I00"w\ do yuu awree wmr ma thal actuafly Sam does run have any man quanmcauun m accounting’ A x awn o Du yuu knvw what rs M: qu2|\Il\<2mnn7 A sum 0 50, Sam has never acmeved me slandam cl exceflenl or onlslavvdmg m terms cl apnrarsan. corned" A Ovevaflryas overam yes 0 wrran do you mam by overuw A omau mean: flynu mad mr-,:rr...g av:mH ha never Q He never he rs ;us|an average wmkefl A Average worker a Verbs! only. amum Ami Mr Choonu yuu mum auvea wllh me max your busmasi rs a<>1ual\Y Irvlwnvma aver lm years «mm zow going up an an way‘ serum or ml’! A ‘We, carved 0 Am yuu would have mrea more mnnpawer m assnu you srfl H’? A Agree 0 us mean, your busmess Is goad ynu used |o mm mare people A Agree 0 And an «ms Mme, based on vmat you ma -5 omy Sum 15012 nmy are m charge or Sanmmas aemum‘ <:nrvs1:1" A Curved SIN xG1ahW\Y7iuNDH|J5yS|JW 5 “Nana s.r.r..r..rwrrr.“...mW...wrr.rr.r.m.m.r.r._.rr..NaW And you mum um arrangee addulnonzl slzflr |u emu In sannunas account as mu. ram 1l’7 Dlsagvai You say Wu canmfi Isarb mrsagree wny you flliagnaefi It depends on Im vmume an we crreru we we perm. r. manure ra handle a\un5, Ilvln why should we hlvs aaunrbnar arm: pub can be dune awn: >o>a> co So you are saym |ha1 Sam can do rx srene-r Yes. based on uurpb qvamminn r um M «b you Iha| ynur answer now arnuszry eanuaurers nun yum p-rvunrrenoe apurursar mac n show IMO you rusr mm. agtee av msauN1a7 A ‘d5-Igree“ :»o 20 as poor penorrrrance rs eleany renecnea rn me annual appraisal conduaea by F «or years 2020 and 2021 where D‘: pervarrnance was considered as ‘average”. D's supervisor nau also specmcaHy remarked lhal n has ‘no sense at urgencf and ‘response time Is bed". In mm. D‘: parlormance nas been Yound wanting since year 201a‘ based on me nbservauon oi as supenor, FW»2. 21. rnese negalwe remarks, eapecrauy concemlng D's poor lime managsmsnl, ought |D have raise a red neg on P to closely rnunuor D‘: work. More so when me pclflfoho handled by n Is one at me mam customers ufP. And mere rsa we days penod Ia submnlhe inyuraes In snon. v 0ugh| to have rsken s\eps Io preenrp: ma pumorled loss 22. The rbuuwrng uansprnea during the mass examlnalmn or PWr2 (cusrorner Service Manager of P), “u wnar about your apurarsaw Do you sums wmh nu rnanung or rr s even rbwsr scum some agreer snrns wrn Du rbwar more So. some agree wnn nne were aivenr some wm be men vus, Doflad Euflhua rs none or me uerns wm he hlghu wave, 4. rw r UOIIM my man can yuu sun rurnurnber wvra| Ive me rrerns max :5 Iowa! some man me me sraraa mars-» I armul rsrnunmar var this year 21:29, lam I an say Ih:| rr menlrnned about In: amsnflance‘ n mu be me rawesr sects rrr (arms afnlxendznce r1 wIH be the raweaw ves wnan abmn -n (arm: braaaummv rrerrr r r Awuummg Mu. «me me could be same some av lawersmre rwru awe u could be nme or renew n>o>o > o>n>o> srn xszunwrwbuwuwsysaurg 9 «nu. s.n.r nmhnrwm be u..a u my r... annn.ru -mm: dnuamnl y. muNa war A Yes a am you rznlvul remamblr cream A wen, u can say ma: (N: an: «arm pan aaaannnng wm be am»: 1 2‘ 1 5 lo 2 a vea. you can box at page as. them we (mu ovevafl rating tabh. un yuu am: nememberwhal n the uvevall rating mal you has gwen la nevenaanw A I cannot remenme: very dean um I aama say man I drd wnue some area iov Impmvemam lav mm In nnpmva we gwe hum chnnce Ia Impmve rm me weaknusui a Bul wmfld yuu wme me mm m ynnr away’! A vea a when wnmfl be my mnngv wnan was you! IaIIru;7 beval1‘2‘3‘6,wmch nne Vs ms'7 A Shomd ne lower man 2 u Lowevlhan 2 meanmg \eva|27 nun oy level I’7 Please be clear was new. A man aayma: \1veH o Hawmo. underlzvel m A vea o The seam: and me «me, nu unis no urgency, rarspmvd nme ws bed Vs oy yum A. V55 Q But m lerms av me aenannanae. Mes Lww‘ wtval x can gamer «mm yam answer .e you sad nevewuam s peflormarvoe was um sallslldmy am. ynu jmnefl me company back m my 201 s. aanecn Thus a whnl you have onaewea A Yes an AM n mean. «a lay new you saw 5\nce 2013 n we were to oumpa-a ma Lvew n we we¢e Io mmpare your ohservahun back m an 5 ind mmpnre mwnh me awrawsal rem M2070 and 21:21. a n a\mo:1 me same merew me even ovpenannanu A Yes a. llama’ semev Mun haw, un yuu speak In Ihe mm A V55, an... “ w n r me Flam was aware ol the Ddendanl vanure lo su nvo ces mlo §anmm § (ms genal 23 P davnslhal n was not aware of D‘: Iailme lu suhmn the mvmces Into SanmIns's c'ns perm, until aner D's Ieswgnalwon 1 find n xmpmbame that P was unaware of me awscarmelly lower Income rece ed Vrum sanmma smoe year zms fur me loHaw|ng reasons. 24. Fns1.F‘s management has access to aH ms accounlmg unlormauon. P theretore could have easily deueae-1 me unbmed mvmces to senmma em .aze.wm.a.awue,,am. 7 “Nair Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e met! a vsfly he nflmnnflly am. flnuamnl VI mum v-ma! vet, this puvpurledly went unoer the radar tor more lhan 3 years trom year 2019 to year 2022 25 Dunng cross examtnaltun. PW-1 (Execultve Director ul P) cunftrmed that ne would nronrtbr the revenue, the payment and the outstandrng payment wrtn respect to lhe customers rnen Jame atso tin’? Janice Ltew tt N5 want to nsstgn ner we can Evevynne Mn. ts H7 Meanmg tt oroytoeo we give aooess Amghh so t| means In say any at your enroteyees have pauwmu and ueentamv R-tevant untatayee we wttt otye access‘ a so your eornaanys vale: can be Men tronr rm system, correci? A Yes c Sat trorn tne FM syxlem ilm Mr Channgr you can aetuatty use tne oetatts ot tne piymem cetteoteo and tne payment oweo by yuurcunomet eoneor.» A correct 0 And mts FM system ts actuatty mm wrtt hnve Access to mm m synam Mr cnoonga A tr I mm to lean out t lmatmtblel. Q vou can .1 you wnmm7 A Va: A: vourwrre also can, Isn| N7 A Can a A o A o A 26 Secund‘ based on P‘: FM (Financtal Management) sysleru and tne statement :2! amounts generated trteretrom every month P woutd have been aware ortne outatanorng sum owed by Sanmtna F would atea be aware ot the Increasing unoata amount trorn Sanmtna lrom year 2020 onwards, by lookmg at me anrruat ttrrancrat statements It tndeed P was oblivious at the rncreasrrrg outstanorno amount trom Sanrmna‘ P nae onty rteett [0 meme 27 It Is rttoorcat tnat me huge eutstandrng sum trom sanmma would gn unoetecteo by F‘s msnagemenl lov years tn partteutar tmm year 2020 tRM212,ao4 90), year 2021 (RM7D1,n51 23; ano year 2022 (RM373,A62 65). 29. The tottawrrrg lvansptred durtng the cross exammalion or PW-3 1SemorAccounIs Exec eott=) ‘Q In your use no 3 Mae Tet-t you ntennoneo about tnn m system. can you rntann me court wmnl uno or rnrerrnarron ts eontarneo .n ma rm syslem7 srn xszunwrwwawnuusymtg 3 «st... sen-t ...n.rorrr .. u... In my a. onmnuuly mm: dnuamnl VI muua v-mat Au mas, an we mvonnauon an smpmnm, an m. lwuunlx oayme‘ on me awuumi vncnwable Aoooums pa-yam. luzuunl vaoswnb\e" Vase and an me slunmenls remeo mnllers \m:\udmg me mvmcesv Yes Puymem maurved «mm customers” Yes o >a>o>o 5: no rlweu tn aucuslhe m system Muss 7e« nnue someone amess Ihe m mug... mu be able ta relneve lorexampleme Vrwmoesu me Do and line shnvmng vrwmces nghl hke whal you have menlmned um now M Ma cusmmens Once you mg m In the FM system, m: wm no me In vvmvvslha mrom-.on Mlzrdmg me mvmoei, pom smpP"'u -nvwcu Do 1 nu ma: me, conmosoee, yes And lhun alw be auls no 951 In klvuw ham much rmney e ma hy In: custnmsn, carved? Yes AH customers. mvvecn Yes wm you as me somm Account: Exlcnmve genlmte me xlnlemenl M aoooum vor every Customer every momm vaa, mm a>o>o>o> rm now «ammo about Sanrmna. \e| 5 he sv9c1l\c,$anmma So. you km»: Sanmma lhu whale yea! yuu do how mum no me: and men yuu wfll am Know how much mvolnus mu -5 Assund mo In Sanmma Var Am aka yau mu knew haw much wwomes remammg unpaid by Sanmma. cnrvecn Revemng lo we Véarrenn name, now Yes. oor-on mm? vaav and name. Y: 50, a means «a uy |>u| sinus lmzzm iar every yeav, m. 2019 ynu mu kmmamm Ins and how much money ws mmed by Sanmma m zuw V2: And 2o2n how much money Is awed by sanmma‘ ourmc17 ves, oorvecl so on and su «om every yaav also ms same, ngN7 Yes a >0 o> o>_> o) What I inked you .. mu, you momeo me Oman mu every yeavemi you mu know vmemer hm much money Is ouusnenumg lrom mo cusloman wwmce unnam 547 ms amount Vs acaumuiallmz imoe me, we mam . Vessev sum [hen Increase, nu ma mcvsase aoam In 24:21 bscauu (ha mvmoes vemam unpan, wsnt M Ounacnzv nor: Yes Your yuat-and s|al:m:n| wumd have shown (ha! ms Increasing ovev me Yum‘ |sn‘| M 0)- SN xG1anww7>uNDHuSyxuw 5 «um. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>euIedIx:VHWhenrW\n|U|YMINIflnuamnlvnAFVLINQ W A HnIm' 29. ll the lap days Ilme perlpa lo Involoe Sanmlna ls onllcal, P should have monlluled |Ile snuallon IO ensure that the lnvololng IS done umeoualy. Proper checks and palances ougm Ia have bssn pm In place In ensure that me lrlvuices are nol omllled and become uneleunaple Especlally glven P‘s knowledge pl D‘; shoflcomlngs and poor Ilme rnanagernenl P eannol blame DI efl D co flounder on me own for more lhan 3 years from year 201910 year 2022 30, The cpun pl Appeal ln Malaysran Arrllne system and v Isrnall Neseruddin urn Abdul wenep [2021] 4 MLJ 724 qumed lnal “an employer must treat his employees lalny. ln nls mndua ol nls business, and m ms lrealmenl ol ms employees, an employer must an responsmly and ln good |al|h 31. In (hls lnslance, l apply lhat la mean that P should have provlded proper supevvlslon and adequate euppan lo D In carrylng pul me lab. Especlally when P was aware or US weakness. 0 had c0mmunlca|ed me slruggla regamlng lne workload Io P Regrenaply. P dud nol seem Io empalhlse mm D's mmeully. 32. Dunng cross akamlnallcrll D leslmed as lollows. 0 M25! l|u‘ apabll-I seyu cakap rnau nu lenun zma sehlngga sepnenmr 2022. men unload ponal CTSI nu ma lak Ermk Sam peman mamlnla umrla lam nil dalam mnxal Plalrllll lmmk upleea ml kspada SalmlIrla’> vu slapa Enclk sarn mlmn7 penoaran suea Mm meellnp. luk ln9a\ mas: munv rlapllap tahun pun ea. Ava sabab Em:lk sern merlulkul kalararlgan Enclk Snm rnernlnla penpa-an umuk upland lrwols kepada CTSI mmala Fnsal lepee llu kerla nlakln hznyak, lak hnleh handle‘ > o>o>o>o> 33 P argues than D ls llaple because ne was the only one who was pm in charge at sanmlmrs ppnlulm Eu| lherem lies me problem Gwen P's knowledge pl D's unsallslaclory perfarmanos, P should have pald closer allemlon And pemaps pul one ulher person en the lob. srn xezenwlmempnusynu. ‘“ «nu. Smnl luvlhnrwlll e. med u may he enun.l-y em. dnuavlml VI .rluNa vwul

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-28PW-20-07/2023

PEMOHON Khor Yong Yong (as the Liquidator of Yeesheng Marketing Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) (Company No. 201601019775/1190712-V) ) RESPONDEN 1. ) Yeesheng Marketing Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) (Company No. 201601019775/1190712-V) ) 2. ) Lee Chin Aik 3. ) Chung Yew Voon

1 The liquidator of a wound up company (RCo) wishes to be released as the liquidator. He asserts that he has fulfilled his duties as liquidator. He applies to Court for the following Orders—(1) that the calling of a meeting of RCo’s creditors and contributories to consider the liquidator’s resignation be dispensed with;(2) that the liquidator be released as RCo’s liquidator;(3) that RCo be dissolved;(4) that RCo’s books, records and papers be destroyed within three months from the date of this Order.2 Should these Orders be granted?

14/12/2023

YA Tuan Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e38f9167-0b72-4704-8243-e72aba974162&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT PULAU PINANG IN THE STATE OF PENANG COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO. PA-28NCC-2-01/2021 POST WINDING UP NO. PA-28PW-20-07/2023 In the matter of an Order for Winding-up against Yeesheng Marketing Sdn. Bhd. (Companies No.: 201601019775/1190712-V) dated 25/08/2021 And In the matter of Sections 490 & 491 of the Companies Act 2016 And In the matter of Rules 149 & 150 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 BETWEEN KHOR YONG YONG (IC NO: 760718075119) (As the Liquidator of Yeesheng Marketing Sdn. Bhd. (in liquidation) (Company No: 201601019775/1190712-V) ... APPLICANT AND 1. YEESHENG MARKETING SDN. BHD. (In liquidation) (Company No: 201601019775/1190712-V) 2. LEE CHIN AIK (IC No: 760727085183) 3. CHUNG YEW VOON (IC No: 741220075759) … RESPONDENTS 14/12/2023 08:30:48 PA-28PW-20-07/2023 Kand. 13 S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT (RELEASE THE LIQUIDATOR, DISSOLVE THE COMPANY, DESTROY ALL BOOKS) PRELUSION [1] The liquidator of a wound up company—the 1st Respondent company (in liquidation) (RCo)—applies for the following Orders— (1) that the calling of a meeting of RCo’s creditors and contributories to consider the liquidator’s resignation be dispensed with; (2) that the liquidator be released as RCo’s liquidator; (3) that RCo be dissolved; (4) that RCo’s books, records and papers be destroyed within three months from the date of this Order. [2] Should these Orders be granted? PERTINENT FACTS RELATING TO THIS APPLICATION [3] RCo was wound up on 25.8.2021. The Applicant was appointed the liquidator. The liquidator took over the conduct of the affairs and management of RCo. [4] As part of the liquidation work to decide if RCo has any assets to distribute to the creditors, the liquidator endeavoured to convene a S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 meeting of RCo’s creditors and contributories on 8.12.2022. But no one showed up at the meeting. [5] Only the 2nd Respondent (R2) lodged a proof of debt. R2 also submitted RCo’s statement of affairs. [6] The liquidator achieved a net realization of assets of approximately RM147K, with a net dividend of approximately RM107K to be paid out. The liquidator paid the net dividend to R2. [7] The liquidator asserts that he has fulfilled his statutory duties as RCo’s liquidator. He asserts that RCo is no longer in need of administration or management. [8] The liquidator had twice advertised in the newspapers and the government gazette to notify the creditors and contributories that he intended to apply to Court to be released as the liquidator. [9] The liquidator suggests that to save time and costs, there is no need to convene a meeting of creditors and contributories just to approve his release as RCo’s liquidator, and to dissolve RCo as a company. THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2016 Section 490 [10] Under section 490 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016), the liquidator can apply to Court and be granted an Order to release him from his duties as RCo’s liquidator and to dissolve RCo. An Order to S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 release the liquidator and to dissolve RCO can be granted if the liquidator has performed his work, which includes realising RCo’s assets, and distributing a final dividend. [11] Here, the liquidator has realised RCo’s assets and had in fact paid out a final dividend to R2—the only creditor who lodged a proof of debt. Rule 149 [12] Rule 149 of the Companies (Winding Up Rules) 1972 (Rules) provides that before he applies for his release, the liquidator is to give Notice of his intention to apply for release to the creditors who have proved their debts, and to the contributories. Together with this notice, the liquidator should also give a Summary of all the receipts and payments in the winding up process. [13] The liquidator asserts that he has given to the creditor and contributories this notice and the accompanying summary. He exhibited the notice and the summary in his affidavit in support of this Application. [14] Rule 149 is set out below for reference— Rule 149. Notice of liquidator's intention to apply for release. A liquidator before making application for his release in Form 76 shall give notice of his intention so to do in Form 75 to all the creditors who have proved their debts and to all the contributories and shall send with the notice a summary of all receipts and payments in the winding-up in Form 77. S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Rule 150 [15] Rule 150 of the Rules provides that there are three ways in which the liquidator can resign as liquidator— (1) summoning separate meetings of the creditors and the contributories, to decide if they accept the liquidator’s resignation; (2) if the creditors and the contributories agree to accept the liquidator’s resignation, the liquidator is to lodge his resignation memorandum with the Registrar (the Chief Executive Officer of the Companies Commission Of Malaysia), and with the Official Receiver, as well as with the Registrar Of Companies. And his resignation will then become effective; (3) “in any other case” i.e. if it is not by (1) or (2) above, the liquidator can apply to Court for the Court to decide if his resignation should be accepted. If the Court accepts the liquidator’s resignation, the Court can make the necessary Order. [16] It is pertinent to note that Subrule 150(5) provides that the Court “may dispense with all or any of the requirements” in Rule 149 and Rule 150. [17] Rule 150 is set out below for reference— Rule 150. Meeting of creditors and contributories to consider resignation of liquidator. S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (1) A liquidator who desires to resign his office shall summon separate meetings of the creditors and contributories of the company to decide whether or not the resignation shall be accepted. (2) If the creditors and contributories by ordinary resolutions agree to accept the resignation of the liquidator he shall file with the Registrar, the Official Receiver and the Registrar of Companies a memorandum of his resignation and the resignation shall thereupon take effect. (3) In any other case the liquidator shall report to the Court the result of the meetings and thereupon the Court may, upon the application of the liquidator, determine whether or not his resignation shall be accepted and may give such directions and make such orders as in its opinion shall be necessary. (4) On the Court pronouncing a determination that a resignation shall be accepted the liquidator shall forthwith file a notice thereof with the Official Receiver and the Registrar of Companies. (5) The Court may dispense with all or any of the requirements of this and the last preceding rule. [emphasis mine] [18] Since— (1) the liquidator has realised RCo’s assets and distributed the final dividend to the sole creditor: R2, and the liquidator is S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 applying for an Order to release him from his duties as RCo’s liquidator (under section 490 of the CA); and (2) the liquidator has given the required notice to the creditors and contributories about his intention to apply for release, as well as the required summary of the receipts and payments in the liquidation process (under Rule 149 of the Rules); and (3) the liquidator is applying to Court to accept his resignation (under Rule 150 of the Rules), I find that it is fair and just to the liquidator and to the sole creditor: R2, that this Court accepts the liquidator’s resignation and releases him from his duties as liquidator. [19] Appropriately, I also find that it is just to dissolve RCo. Section 518 [20] Section 518 provides that when a company is wound up, and later dissolved, all the “books and papers” of the company must be kept for five years after the date the company was dissolved. In other words, the books and papers of a wound up and later dissolved company must be kept for five years before they can be destroyed. [21] However, the books and papers of the company can be destroyed “within” five years i.e. in less than five years, if the winding up Court so directs. S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [22] The pertinent portions of section 518 are set out below— Section 518. Books and papers of company (1) Where a company is being wound up, all books and papers of the company and of the liquidator that are relevant to the affairs of the company at or subsequent to the commencement of the winding up of the company shall be prima facie evidence of the truth of all matters recorded in the books or papers in respect of the contributories and the company. (2)When a company has been wound up, the liquidator shall retain the books and papers referred to in subsection (1) for a period of five years from the date of the dissolution of the company and at the expiration of that period, may destroy the books and papers. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), when a company has been wound up, the books and papers referred to in subsection (1) may be destroyed within a period of five years after the dissolution of the company— (a) in the case of a winding up by the Court, in accordance with the directions of the Court; (b) in the case of a members’ voluntary winding up, as the company by resolution directs; and (c) in the case of a creditors’ voluntary winding up, as the committee of inspection, or, if there is no such committee, as the creditors of the company direct… S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Rule 152 [23] Rule 152, in a similar fashion, provides that when a liquidator resigns or seeks to be released, the wound up company’s “books, papers, documents and accounts” can be destroyed “or otherwise disposed of”. [24] Rule 152 is set out below— Rule 152. Proceedings on resignation, etc. of liquidator. (1) Upon a liquidator resigning or being released or removed from his office, he shall deliver over to the Official Receiver or the new liquidator, as the case may be, all books kept by him and all other books, documents, papers, and accounts in his possession relating to the office of liquidator, and the release of a liquidator shall not take effect unless and until he has delivered over to the Official Receiver or the new liquidator, as the case may be, all the books, documents, papers and accounts aforesaid. (2) The Court may, at any time during the progress of the liquidation, on the application of the liquidator or the Official Receiver, direct that such of the books, papers, and documents of the company or of the liquidator as are no longer required for the purpose of the liquidation, may be sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed of. [emphasis mine] S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [25] Since— (1) RCo is wound up; and (2) the liquidator has completed his task to distribute RCo’s assets by paying out to R2 the final dividend; and (3) the liquidator resigns his position and seeks an Order of the winding up Court to release him from his duties as liquidator; and (4) the liquidator asks for the Court’s directions to destroy RCo’s books and papers; and (5) the books and papers are no longer needed for the liquidator for the liquidation process, I find that it is also appropriate and just to direct that RCo’s books and papers be destroyed relatively immediately (without waiting for the expiry of five years after RCo is dissolved). CONCLUSION [26] For all the above reasons, I grant an Order in the terms that the liquidator applies for, namely— (1) that the calling of a meeting of RCo’s creditors and contributories to consider the liquidator’s resignation be dispensed with; (2) that the liquidator be released as RCo’s liquidator; S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (3) that RCo be dissolved; (4) that RCo’s books, records and papers be destroyed within three months from the date of this Order. Dated: 14 December 2023 signed KENNETH ST JAMES Judicial Commissioner Penang High Court Counsel/Solicitors For the Applicant Loke See Yee [Messrs. J. Tan & C.H. Lim (Pulau Pinang)] Legislation referred to: 1. Section 490 and 518 of the Companies Act 2016. 2. Rule 149, Rule 150 and Rule 152 of the Companies (Winding Up Rules) 1972. Cases referred to: - S/N Z5GP43ILBEeCQcqupdBYg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24NCvC-1632-09/2022

PEMOHON 1. ) ANUAR BIN MOHD DAIN 2. ) ZURIDAH BINTI MOHD DIN RESPONDEN 1. ) SHAPEE BIN MOHAMAD NOR 2. ) NORHAYATI BINTI MOHD NOR 3. ) AZIZAN BINTI MOHAMAD NOR 4. ) NORAZIAH BINTI MOHAMAD NOR 5. ) SITI FATIMAH BINTI KADRI 6. ) AZMAN BIN MOHAMAD NOR

Surat Kuasa Wakil yang diberikan kepada wakil yang dilantik tidak mengecualikan tanggungjawab asal pemberi kuasa tersebut.

14/12/2023

YA Puan Zaharah Binti Hussain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c18297c6-c870-4649-ba1f-417f077af264&Inline=true

14/12/2023 10:10:33 BA-24NCvC-1632-09/2022 Kand. 12 S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xpeCwXDISUa6H0F/B3ryZA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal aA—2mcvc—1s32—n9/2022 Kand. 12 xa/12/mu ,n 1: n MAHKAMAH YINGGI MALAVA nu sum ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGDR DARUL Ensm. MALAVSIA 1. ANUAR am MOHD mm (No. KW: 911020-055119) 2. ZURIDAH BINTI MOHD DIN (N0. KP: s511oa.1o.a1nx) ...PLAINTlF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. SHAPEE am MOHAMAD NOR mo. KIF: mm-mvm1) {Pam-mun wuuu Kum Mlnurul sum Kuasa Wakll wurnm 23.11.2n1s ynnv ulauumu an luwah No. Purlwihan nsza/as di Mahkamah Tlngal Knall Lumnuv pad: 2: 112m) 2. NORHAVAII BINTI noun NOR mo‘ KIF: nsnzza-1 0-7255) 3 AIIIAN awn MOHAMAD NOR (NO. KIP: 71n9oa-1n-517:1) 4. uoruzmu sum MOHAMAD NOR (Nu KIP:N'lO5fl9-14-5030) mm mum 1511 an/M22 sw xv-Cm<D\suaaHaFra:Irv7A -ms Sum M... M“ be used m wow u. nvwvufilv mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm 5. sm FATIMAH BINTI KADRI (MO. K/P: 4n11n1-1n-51:52) u. AZMAN am IIOHAIIIAD NOR (no. KIP: asnaoz-10-5173) ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAM mngmavan [1] Panda 6 9 2m Mshkamah man membenalkan dan mamhenkan Penman ssuem dimhun unluk samzn Famma Pk-Jmlfl dz-flam Lsmpiran 1 banarlkh 29 9 2022 aengan kos sebanyak RI/13.000 00 [2] Penman yang mnenkan secam nngkasnya adawl H) Penman unmk mewualkuasskan pewaxsanaan svssmk larhadap Psnanjizn Jual sen bsnarikh aonzma yang dI(and2I|2Ingani an anlara Defender: Panama dangan P|i1nM bemubung nembeflan sekeping lanah knsang yang mempakan plot/Iol 22 yang berukuran keluasun saw «an parses: Vamu senansman darivsda sakawng Ianah kosmlg yang dipegang di bewah Hakmllxk Geran Mukwu 2394‘ No. L01 1443, Tampa! Earn 11 %, Mukim dan Dasrah Hulu Larvga|, 1laA—1ANcvc—1s32rn~1/I027 IN xv-cwxnwsuawurraarym -ms sum In-nhnv wm he used m mm u. nvVfl\ruU|y mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Negen sevangar ['H|nanah nemnur) dsfifian harga behan slbanyak RM1uo.D0u uu‘ Pelinlah bahawa Defandamiefendan memuuax pemmhunin unmk panuknran dan mush 'Par'.nnIan' kepsda Esrvgunsn‘ (mi Hskmmk aarasman - Hananah dlpecah sampadan dun manandatzangam boring pindah wx (W) M Deiendan-deiervflsn membsyar Iqumah kos sabznyak kan kasnng mbemn kepada Pwamm RM225‘250 an (ml uevenaarmetsnuan mambayar ganmvgl vanemu ssbanyak RMa4.sou.oo Lntnbalalxany kn [3] sum Kussa waku henankh 2311201: (caveman 1 dengan Deierldan-daiundan 2 3 4 5&6 Defendan 1 «away. when kuasa men Defendan 2, 3, o, 5 A e sebzgal penium-pen[ua\ dan man Oanah unluk menandatangam Peqanpan Jual bah sens msnguatkuasakan peflaksanaannya 1;] u x kn n n I: 112016 Dalandan 1 dan Ahd Jabber us. mm: 1s31—ny/zuzz IN xv-cwxnwsuawunazrym -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Defindan 1 se\aku Psruual dan Pemmk aamamar Hananah leluh melanlvk Abd Jabbar om Mohimed malalm suran Kuasa WakH berlankh 23.11.2915 unluk msmmna Iumah kadiaman as atas hananah (arsabul. 19 many pemnan lelah mam-1ndzlangamPsrjavman Juan Eeh (ersebm den P\aIm1f mama salah seomng pemeeu lsrsshut [51 5 na kuasa wakfl banalikh 23 e 2017 Devenuan 1 demzm Aggy. m b r nvabua Ana Jabbir b\n Mahamad tewan msnmqgal duma‘ Dsfendan 1 |e|ah mammwk anak Aha Jabbar ram. Afiqah sebagaw wakw kuasa mslilm ‘Surll Kuasa wmr barunkh 23 s 2017 [5] Plalmfl ssbagal pambali neran mmaksanakan langgungjawsbnya aangan mambnyar kesemmhan wang pembeHin hsnanah «enebm rn neaenaamecendan sebegai pemuik bemallar Ielah gags! menuxar syaral hananah den gags: memmahmmk hananah kapada Flamfif sebagaimana yang dllelapkan da\am Periarman Jual bell Perunlukin undanwundang mnnganal sum w-kn Kuun an buwnh Akh sum Khan wnIu11ue(Aku 424) 4]nA«2oNcv:~Ir-:1~n~/1:371 IN xv-cwxnwsuawaflazrym -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm :31 Sum! wakll kuaea adaiah sura| mslmmenl daham man: dmyataknn bahawa pemnan kuasa member!’ kuasa kapada penenma kulsa unluk melamnakan npa-awn ungmmma-wan mu Iuaasun Iscara umum alau secara spasm nag! Dihak Dambed kuasa mas nama venanma kuasa [5] Ian;/6 Mann»: pembenan kuasa dlbual memul Surat Kuasa waku dsn dwsndalanganv olah pemmn kuasa nhaia [101 Kuasa nenanma beluanwng kepaaa kum yuna anumnxan kapadunya eleh pemben Kuasa mam yang arperunmkkan dalarn Surat Kuasa Wakil [11] Ruluk kepada kn Magnum Flnnncn Eormd v. Ling Sing Ping [ma] 2 ML! A01, VA Haklm menyalakan ‘Claws a M the pnwor av attorney umharfzs: am In cfllmu m. mm-4.-nr: propm but r wnydcv that IN pamuu no so mm! be lead in K: Izomm in ma powar of Monkey m Iislemuna 1». Imitation: M such mu - ‘kzvanatlan 5 EW7 Msrmmmi nmpmmq Ia mm a powlr Marromay av wm‘:Iv . hue may m .n 12/72. a! m. Rlwsflrnv or . Slruu Rngtdm m arcmdannv mm mm whethsrbsmra aranarlivs commancsmem amu: Act shall so far I: maybe compaabla mm the mm: vim: mflmmam, mnflvwl In my unlil mzllrx m wmmg of me revocmcm Imvual by my now, III: mu mama In wry omen m mm. m olfice mum we may Nlovoalhas man so u-comm aunhn m. nonar um. donec has am or was douse 5IaA n~ums.az,a9/zazz sw xv-cwxnwsu-mnnazrym «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm Msawama ahmsamld mmfl. arms mum bacmm ..:fl..:g.a:nm .;« unsound mm or . rIclMng order Ivls bun mm against mm m bankluatc)’ [121 Kes mnrnn um." Suluimln v. Abdul Km-lir bln Sulllmln dun IA!/Hnln [2018] uuu 457 memuwsknn bahawa dalum menalm Saks)/en 5 dan s Fowar 01 Aitarnsy A51 woe, malalm susunin pmauan den kasannya ada¥ah sanga| Mas Dalam keadaan yang sedsmiluan ada\ah merllldw mass Mahkamah mi umuk memben kesan dan ma: underag- undang "./usfslu nu, Surat Kuasa Wald! (P5; yang km: berada dalam mfllkan Plalntll sdalsh man zamsm min max no/an clrkustkuasskan I59! says mg/n msrregaskan Dal-vaws Smut Kussu Wsknl bukanlah suznu mzmmem unruk memben maria (slap! hsnya/ah memban kuasa untuk mangwus z nmaman semasa Psmben‘ Sum! Waktl Kuasa maslh mdup nun mam/uk kapaua Dsrumukan undarI9~uncInI|s1 menum Ssksysn 5 den 5 AH: Surat Kusss wen: 1949 41! B133, ads/an [alas memnjukkan bahawaz apabila berlaklmya kamalzan pemban kuasa alau pensrima kussa, maks Sunal Kuasa Wakrl tarsebm am larbalal dsngnn ssndmnya. nsrsm msmuluskan 1:» Int says mwn msnyalakan jugs Dshaws sesuam smmussa Wakllada/ah lrdak same dwseglplrnslp dun kansepnye dsngan janp, wasiat slaupun kepulusan mat SI man‘ (95) harm/an Surat Kuaxs Wakrldsn rsnys buksnlalv ,sn,., Wama! araupun kaputusan nial 51 man. Sssuam Surat Kuasa Wakfl mm akan flan ndak pemah akan meryadfjanjr, sm zmnmm as/znzz Wasra! alaupulv kepmussn ma! 5/ mull kovani Isnys bamaza dad segv pump dun konsspnya am new mm oer:/ncllnqan /anyajuga mas: bslbsza" Annllm Mlhkamah [13] Surat Kuasa Wakfl harvarikh 23112016 dw mun Defendan 1 dsngun Aw Jabbar dam selerusnys surat Kuasa wamx bsmarikh 23.05.2017 :11 aniara Devermn 1 dengan Auqan m'nuAm1 Jabber adalnh ma|vba|kan P\ainfi1 sebaga! Pembalw hananeh cersebux [15] Sum Kuasa Wakil mssbul mambenkan kuasa kepada Abd Jahbar dan setemsnya Amman unluk manialankan keruH<en1a menukur nukmmk danpada nan-a—nama Delendsn kepeaa name Plainm tabauai pamnik mm. [151 Delenuan 1 was benama Deva-man-uavanuan Vain Iwdak bnleh msnggunakan a\asan hahawa |eIah ads Sural Kunsu WakH yang dibsnkan kepada Abd Jabber darn Auqah unluk mebpaskan um daripada Iangfiungjawab sehagai Panjua\ Hananah larssbm. my Delandan-dafendan Ielap penu memaluhi syaml Fenanuan Jual ae« |eIsebu| nu uncut-15x7—n9/2011 IN xv-cwxnwsuawunazrym -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [17] s osienaarmacanuan ini benanggunmamb umuk msmbenkan ganmvgw aye wakH kuasa gigs! memahmi alahan Defandan 1. maka kapada Ph:aInm wbesal vembslx‘ Ponuluy [13] Bardasarksn penehuan (msebm, P\amm aumah barhak unluk mendeuirtkan haknya berdasankan Peqani-an Jual Bell lelsebul Defundan 1 dan Deiendan-dafendan Vain fidak man manggunakan Nisan Keudakpmuhan wane yang Lflbenkan kuasa dawn Surat Kuasa Wakil unmx manamakuvi Penanliin Juav Bali tersabut [19] Owen nu. Pannlah umuk mangualkuasakan panakssnaan wesmk nemaaap Psryannan Jua\ Befl adalih avbenkan. Esnarikh 1 Disember 2023 AH amn rIus§AIN) Pesuruhjaya Kehaklman Mahkamah Tings! NOW: 2 Shah Alam am mm: mm;/znzz IN xv-cwxnwsuawunazrym -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm KAQMEE anal nlluk P-ruynrnmna-n-umnaanz Teluan Azhar Am A Associates Nu. s-12 (Lave! 5), Duplex omee, Plaza Azaxaa, Famaran smaraya. Sskswn 14. mono Shah mam. Selangnr Duml Ehaan. Ema". generavflazhapiyz gum Ti! 03éB922I13 am Plluk R-Ipom.IInIPlIln(|l Taluan Tenaku Axum, Allan shan 5. Azman unn 73-2, Jalzm wangsu uenma 5‘ Pusal Eandavwangsa Main (KLSC), Wanqsa Man, 53300 Kuala Lumnur alnrzmruc mm;/znzz IN xv-cwxnwsuawaflazrym -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Ruiukln kn: 1 Magnum Frnmae aemaa v Una Smg P1ng(|9EB]2 Mu 403 2 Hamzah binli Smanman v. Abdul Kadirbm swam" dzn lam4ain [2015] Muu 667 1n|M—7Ancvc4sJ: omen IN xv-cwxnwsuawunazrym -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-92-02/2020

PLAINTIF AIR PLUS TRAVEL AND TOURS PTE LTD DEFENDAN S5 SYSTEMS SDN BHD

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was struck out by the Court for the disconnect between the endorsement on the Writ and the Statement of Claim (“SOC”) subsequently filed. The SOC was also defective for non-compliance with the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) in the manner off drafting a pleading and the SOC also lacked clarity of the actual cause of actions which the Plaintiff’s counsel refused to rectify on the directive of the Court.In exercising its powers under the Rules, the Court struck out Plaintiff’s claim but with no order as to costs.

14/12/2023

YA Dato' Haji Akhtar Bin Tahir

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c58e3223-0702-41c8-a63b-6cf395a5f399&Inline=true

Alasan Airplus edited 13.12.2023.doc DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA BAHAGIAN SIVIL NO. GUAMAN SIVIL : WA-22NCVC-92-02/2020 ANTARA AIR PLUS TRAVEL AND TOURS PTE LTD (NO. SYARIKAT: C-559/2009) …PLAINTIF DAN S5 SYSTEMS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 757140-A) …DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction 1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was struck out by the Court for the disconnect between the endorsement on the Writ and the Statement of Claim (“SOC”) subsequently filed. 14/12/2023 15:56:57 WA-22NCvC-92-02/2020 Kand. 171 S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2. The SOC was also defective for non-compliance with the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”) in the manner off drafting a pleading and the SOC also lacked clarity of the actual cause of actions which the Plaintiff’s counsel refused to rectify on the directive of the Court. The Writ 3. The Plaintiff’s Writ was endorsed with the Plaintiff’s claim for ascertained sums of money to wit USD 5,700,000; USD 707,120.25; USD 24,539.47 or the equivalent in Malaysian Ringgit and interest. 4. Under the Rules the Writ must be endorsed in the following manner: Endorsement on writ (O. 6 r. 2) (1) Before a writ is issued, it shall be endorsed- (a) with a statement of claim, which shall comply with the requirements of Order 18, or, if the statement of claim is not endorsed on the writ, with a concise statement of the nature of the claim made or the relief or remedy required in the action begun thereby; 5. In this case it is clear that the SOC in this case was not endorsed in the Writ but was filed separately. The Writ can also be endorsed with a concise statement of the nature of the claim made. In this case the concise statement of fact is also not endorsed on the Writ. S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6. What has been endorsed is the relief or remedy claimed by the Plaintiff and as pointed out earlier the relief or remedy was for an ascertained and quantified sum of money. SOC 7. In paragraph 11 of the SOC the claim is worded in the following manner “Plaintiff claims the Defendant and its then Director/ Chief Executive Officer, the said Johan Young had used its then holding company Nexbis Pty Ltd. Had lawfully and fraudulently conspired and agreed together to cheat and defraud the Plaintiff to hoodwink and deceive the Plaintiff and to hoodwink and deceive the Plaintiff and officers of the Department of Immigration and Emigration. Government of the Republic of Maldives on the MIBCs Project. Including all dignitaries and officials of the Government of Republic of Maldives and to prevent the Plaintiff from recovering the sum due and owing to the said Plaintiff under the said Agreement” 8. At the outset it can be ascertained that the parties mentioned in this paragraph are not even parties to this action. The names mentioned here are Johan Young, Nexbis Pty Ltd and Government of Maldives. The allegations in this paragraph is that the said Johan Young had conspired to deceive not only the Plaintiff but also the Government of Maldives. 9. The manner in which the allegation of conspiracy to deceive is drafted surely the said Johan Young should be the principal Defendant. Further there is nothing to indicate that the S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Government of Maldives has authorised the Plaintiff to act on its behalf. Surely if the Government of Maldives had been so deceived, they would have initiated the claim not the Plaintiff who has no locus to act on their behalf. 10. In the very next paragraph, the Plaintiff begins by making allegations against the Defendant and listing out a number of factors purportedly showing that the Defendant is involved in a conspiracy. However, the paragraph does not specify with whom the Defendant is conspiring with. In the next few paragraphs, the Plaintiff reverts back to the name Johan Young as the person leading the conspiracy. The Plaintiff makes interchangeable allegations against the said Johan Young and the Defendant forgetting that the Defendant is a limited liability company which is a separate entity with its directors. 11. From paragraphs 4 to 10 of the SOC the Plaintiff gives a lengthy historical background between its business relationship with the Defendant which has no relevance to final relief and remedy claimed by the Plaintiff. There are also various lengthy and confusing statements in the other paragraphs of the SOC which are too lengthy to reproduce. Suffice to say all theses statements are unnecessary and irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s claim. 12. The manner in which the SOC is drafted flouts all the rules of drafting a pleading that are stipulated under the Rules beginning with Order 18 Rule 7 of the Rules which stipulates as follows: S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7. Facts, not evidence, to be pleaded (O. 18 r. 7) (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and rules 10, 11 and 12, every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved, and the statement shall be as brief as the nature of the case admits. (emphasis mine). 13. Order 18 Rule 12(1) emphasizes that: (1) Subject to paragraph (2), every pleading shall contain the necessary particulars of any claim, defence or other matter pleaded including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words- (a) particulars of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence on which the party pleading relies; and (b) where a party pleading alleges any condition of the mind of any person, whether any disorder or disability of mind or any malice, fraudulent intention or other condition of mind except knowledge, particulars of the facts on which the party relies. (emphasis mine) S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14. It can be summarised here that the manner the SOC has been drafted in this case departs drastically from the requirements under the Rules. These are substantial departures and cannot be regarded as mere technicalities. The importance of an SOC cannot be understated and be diminished, as a proper SOC plays an important part in disposal of a case in a just and expeditious manner 15. In this case the defects in the SOC are compounded by the fact that there is an utter disconnect between the endorsement on the Writ and the SOC. This runs contrary to what is provided under Order 18 Rule 15(2) which stipulates as follows: (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 alter, modify or extend any claim made by him in the endorsement of the writ without amending the endorsement. 16. The above provision is clear the SOC shall not contain any allegation or cause of action unless the cause of action is mentioned in the writ but the parties are liberty subject to this restriction to amplify the claim if such a cause of action is mentioned. S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17. In this case it is clear that endorsement in the Writ does not envisage any claim for conspiracy to deceive as stated in paragraph 11 and all the other paragraphs relating to conspiracy to deceive. This is because the prove of such conspiracy entitles a party to at most general damages to be assessed by the Court. Losses suffered cannot be in the form of quantified and ascertained damages as has been endorsed in the Writ this case. It is trite law that general damages cannot be quantified as has been done in the Writ in this case. Order 18 Rule 12 1A states “(1A) No party shall quantify any claim or counterclaim for general damages. 18. It can be summarised by the Court in this case there are flagrant non-compliances with the Rules of the Court which cannot be ignored by the Court nor the Court can turn a blind eye to all these non-compliances as this will lead to injustice and will be an abuse of the process of court 19. In further considering the SOC, in the Court’s view the only discernible cause of action in the Plaintiff’s SOC is a claim for breach of contract of payment as specified in paragraph 30 of the SOC onwards. In line with this cause of action and to avoid confusion the Court directed the Plaintiff to make the amendments to the SOC to reflect the cause of action under a breach of contract. The Plaintiff has refused to make any amendments to the SOC filed. S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Powers of Court in striking out 20. The Court is aware of Order 1A which states as follows: Regard shall be to justice (O. 1A) In administering these Rules, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical non-compliance with these Rules. 21. In the Court’s view the more important provision is Order 34 which overcomes other Rules by stating “Notwithstanding anything in these Rules”. Order 34(1) states: 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 S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (b) such directions may be given as to the future course of the action as appear best adapted to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal thereof. (emphasis mine) 22. Under the above provision the Court is empowered to give directions as to the future course of action and in this Court gave such directions but were not complied by the Plaintiff. 23. The Rules further empowers the Court in the following terms: (2) Where any party fails to comply with any order made or direction given by the Court under paragraph (1), the Court may dismiss the action, strike out the defence or counterclaim or make such other order as it thinks fit. Conclusion 24. In exercising its powers under the Rules, the Court struck out Plaintiff’s claim but with no order as to costs. Dated: 13.12.2023 sgd DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Nama Peguamcara: Wan Fazila Salmi; Johan Mohan Abdullah; Dato' George Varughese Tetuan Johan Arafat Hamzah & Mona Level 3, Safeguards Business Centre, Lot 6, Jalan 225, Seksyen 51A, 46100 Petaling Jaya. For the Defendant: Nama Peguamcara: Jeyshini Naidu a/p G. Kali Das Tetuan Jasbeer Nur & Lee 6 - 2nd Floor, Block C, Wisma RKT, Jalan Raja Abdullah, Off Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50300 Kuala Lumpur. S/N IzKOxQIHyEGmO2zzlaXzmQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CA-25-11-08/2020

PEMOHON 1. ) CHEN YOKE KONG 2. ) CHIN SWEE HEUNG 3. ) Hah Kin Keong 4. ) HOH YICK CHOY 5. ) LAI SAI HO 6. ) Liang Wei Shiuh 7. ) Low Kon Yow 8. ) Won Min Fatt 9. ) Cheong Yuen Yin 10. ) Chow Chee Keong11. ) Chan Chun Kit1 2. ) Chan Yat Keat1 3. ) Chin Swee Chong1 4. ) Choi Kim Long1 5. ) Chow Kok Wei1 6. ) Chua Seng Wen1 7. ) Fong Mun Long1 8. ) Ho Kah Weng1 9. ) Kwa Kit Kong20. ) Lai Kow Chai21. ) Lai Seng Wah2 2. ) Lai Wei Chun2 3. ) Lee Kok Seng2 4. ) Lee Nyat Tong2 5. ) Leong Chee Heng2 6. ) Leong Kee San2 7. ) Leong Kin Min2 8. ) Leong Kuai Tai2 9. ) Leong Siew Shion30. ) Leong Wai Hong31. ) Liang Yik Ching3 2. ) Loh Siew Seng3 3. ) Mah Seen Hee3 4. ) Ning Kah Chun3 5. ) Phun Khong Seng3 6. ) Pon Kok Kit3 7. ) Shum Tim Seng3 8. ) Siew Chee Keong3 9. ) Sin Jeng Han40. ) Su Siew Choong41. ) Tang Su Foon4 2. ) Tee Nam Yang4 3. ) Tham Chee Hoong4 4. ) Tham Kwan Sun4 5. ) Tham Nyik Wah4 6. ) Thoo Nyok Ying4 7. ) Tong Chee Fui4 8. ) Tong San Sun4 9. ) Tong Thin Fook50. ) Wai Thin Wah51. ) Wan Siew Mun5 2. ) Wong Chee Keong5 3. ) Wong Chou Yit5 4. ) Wong Chyh Hong5 5. ) Wong Kam Tun5 6. ) Yang Yik Hong5 7. ) Yap Chee Wing5 8. ) Yap Choon Tin5 9. ) Yeong Wan Leng60. ) Lum Fook Keong61. ) Chau Jian Xiong6 2. ) Lee Kien Fai6 3. ) Leong Nam Sang6 4. ) Shiew Cheen Keong6 5. ) Chong Theen Choy6 6. ) Cheong Man Loong6 7. ) Sin Wai Khuan6 8. ) Chin Soong Kim6 9. ) Meng San Sang70. ) Cham Kim Tai 71. ) Chan Kwong Soon 7 2. ) Chan Nam Sang7 3. ) Chan Yok Wan7 4. ) Cheah Kam Seng 7 5. ) Cheen Leen Fack7 6. ) Chen Woon Pui7 7. ) Cheong Lan7 8. ) Chiang Heng Mun7 9. ) Choy Weng Choon80. ) Chum Nam Sing 81. ) Hoh Yoon Loy8 2. ) Lai Jan Yen8 3. ) Lai Kok Hong8 4. ) Lee Nyuk Man8 5. ) Lew Kam Long 8 6. ) Liew Keng Lam8 7. ) Liew Yee Lang8 8. ) Ong Ha Ngow8 9. ) Ong Mok Sang 90. ) San Chan Sooi91. ) Tan Wai Kiat9 2. ) Yeap Kon Fah9 3. ) Chin Yoon9 4. ) Chum Mun 9 5. ) Lee Ah Fatt 9 6. ) Lee Mooi Fai9 7. ) Loke Chee Cheong9 8. ) Lor Kai Tong9 9. ) Moo Kat Chong100. ) Nang Ka Lai101. ) Ng Chee Wei10 2. ) NG KAM HUNG [Identity Card No.: 10 3. ) Tham San Choon 10 4. ) Wai Mui Fong 10 5. ) Wan Sui Lan10 6. ) Wong Mun Choon10 7. ) Yap Kim Wah10 8. ) Yap Meow Choy RESPONDEN 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Raub 2. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PERHUTANAN 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 4. ) Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Negeri Pahang (PKPP) 5. ) ROYAL PAHANG DURIAN RESOURCES PKPP SDN. BHD.

The 6th Respondent then has filed applications to strike out the Judicial Review proceedings via Enclosure 132 in suit CA-25-11-08/2020 and Enclosure 92 in suit CA-25-12-10/2020. This court has set aside the striking out applications both the suits with cost RM10,000.00 respectively. The 6th Respondent has failed to give cogent reasons as to why the Application of Judicial Review must be struck out. The Court of Appeal via order dated 8.9.2021 has allowed the Applicants appeal for the Judicial Review to be heard. When such order has been given, this Court is tied down with the doctrine of stare decisis. The 6th Respondent have failed to proof to the court on the balance of probabilities as to why the Judicial Review must be struck out.

14/12/2023

YA Dato' Haji Zainal Azman Bin Ab. Aziz

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=901f3011-abcd-47f5-83b8-433a5949f4de&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - AP CA-25-11-08-2020 & CA-25-12-10-2020 KM132 & 92 BATAL S.K ROYAL PHG DURIAN 10.2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKLUR JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION : CA-25-11-08/2020 BETWEEN 1. CHEN YOKE KONG (NO. K/P : 700315-06-5085) …APPLICANTS 2. CHIN SWEE HEUNG (NO. K/P : 720219-06-5083) 3. HAH KIN KEONG (NO. K/P : 880906-06-5571) 4. HOH YICK CHOY (NO. K/P : 480729-71-5015) 5. LAI SAI HO (NO. K/P : 740607-06-5331) 6. LIANG WEI SHIUH (NO. K/P : 781016-06-5111) 7. LOW KON YOW (NO. K/P : 491023-06-5077) 8. WON MIN FATT (NO. K/P : 930423-14-5991) 9. CHEONG YUEN YIN (NO. K/P : 870426-05-5308) 10. CHOW CHEE KEONG (NO. K/P : 870124-06-5981) 11. CHAN CHUN KIT (NO. K/P : 790722-06-5439) 14/12/2023 09:46:07 CA-25-11-08/2020 Kand. 214 S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 12. CHAN YAT KEAT (NO. K/P : 790222-06-5387) 13. CHIN SWEE CHONG (NO. K/P : 641120-06-5117) 14. CHOI KIM LONG (NO. K/P : 680428-06-5457) 15. CHOW KOK WEI (NO. K/P : 720627-05-5271) 16. CHUA SENG WEN (NO. K/P : 610218-10-5891) 17. FONG MUN LONG (NO. K/P : 800422-06-5257) 18. HO KAH WENG (NO. K/P : 641113-06-5039) 19. KWA KIT KONG (NO. K/P : 620427-10-6013) 20. LAI KOW CHAI (NO. K/P : 470706-08-5947) 21. LAI SENG WAH (NO. K/P : 810306-06-5339) 22. LAI WEI CHUN (NO. K/P : 980729-06-5463) 23. LEE KOK SENG (NO. K/P : 601024-06-5065) 24. LEE NYAT TONG (NO. K/P : 510810-08-5545) 25. LEONG CHEE HENG (NO. K/P : 780824-06-5393) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 26. LEONG KEE SAN (NO. K/P : 620326-10-5951) 27. LEONG KIN MIN (NO. K/P : 570601-06-5331) 28. LEONG KUAI TAI (NO. K/P : 550405-10-5860) 29. LEONG SIEW SHION (NO. K/P : 620916-06-5355) 30. LEONG WAI HONG (NO. K/P : 861116-33-5289) 31. LIANG YIK CHING (NO. K/P : 700826-06-5001) 32. LOH SIEW SENG (NO. K/P : 630225-06-5603) 33. MAH SEEN HEE (NO. K/P : 580506-06-5025) 34. NING KAH CHUN (NO. K/P : 770620-14-5229) 35. PHUN KHONG SENG (NO. K/P : 820831-06-5053) 36. PON KOK PIT (NO. K/P : 770430-06-5359) 37. SHUM TIM SENG (NO. K/P : 950102-08-5463) 38. SIEW CHEE KEONG (NO. K/P : 711029-06-5301) 39. SIN JENG HAN (NO. K/P : 800119-14-5801) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 40. SU SIEW CHOONG (NO. K/P : 740304-06-5289) 41. TANG SU FOON (NO. K/P : 730605-06-5160) 42. TEE NAM YANG (NO. K/P : 490815-10-5749) 43. THAM CHEE HOONG (NO. K/P : 771023-06-5559) 44. THAM KWAN SUN (NO. K/P : 591010-08-6555) 45. THAM NYIK WAH (NO. K/P : 830927-06-5727) 46. THOO NYOK YING (NO. K/P : 601102-06-5168) 47. TONG CHEE FUI (NO. K/P : 831028-06-5215) 48. TONG SAN SUN (NO. K/P : 780519-14-5477) 49. TONG THIN FOOK (NO. K/P : 650905-06-5365) 50. WAI THIN WAH (NO. K/P : 710531-06-5177) 51. WAN SIEW MUN (NO. K/P : 710916-06-5549) 52. WONG CHEE KEONG (NO. K/P : 670714-06-5037) 53. WONG CHOU YIT (NO. K/P : 780520-06-5474) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 54. WONG CHYH HONG (NO. K/P : 760423-06-5255) 55. WONG KAM TUN (NO. K/P : 550704-06-5045) 56. YANG YIK HONG (NO. K/P : 870124-06-6001) 57. YAP CHEE WING (NO. K/P : 881205-06-5477) 58. YAP CHOON TIN (NO. K/P : 691108-06-5021) 59. YEONG WAN LENG (NO. K/P : 620325-06-5396) 60. LUM FOOK KEONG (NO. K/P : 791209-14-5109) 61. CHAU JIAN XIONG (NO. K/P : 900420-14-5761) 62. LEE KIEN FAI (NO. K/P : 870311-06-5565) 63. LEONG NAM SANG (NO. K.P : 740103-06-5581) 64. SHIEW CHEE KEONG (NO. K/P : 640225-06-5477) 65. CHONG THEEN CHOY (NO. K/P : 680627-06-5003) 66. CHEONG MAN LOONG (NO. K/P : 670120-06-5371) 67. SIN WAI KHUAN (NO. K/P : 660108-08-5725) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 68. CHIN SOONG KIM (NO. K/P : 690206-10-5360) 69. MENG SAN SANG 70. CHAM KIM TAI (NO. K/P : 470629-08-5360) 71. CHAN KWONG SOON (NO. K/P : 791204-06-5329) 72. CHAN NAM SANG (NO. K/P : 611121-06-5103) 73. CHAN YOK WAN 74. CHEAH KAM SENG (NO. K/P : 701009-14-5161) 75. CHEEN LEEN FACK (NO. K/P : 480802-06-5187) 76. CHEN WOON PUI (NO. K/P : 850717-14-5591) 77. CHEONG LAN (NO. K/P : 520716-06-5044) 78. CHIANG HENG MUN (NO. K/P : 720307-06-5403) 79. CHOY WENG CHOON (NO. K/P : 670210-06-5543) 80. CHUM NAM SING (NO. K/P : 780831-06-5391) 81. HOH YOON LOY (NO. K/P : 710430-06-5215) 82. LAI JAN YEN (NO. K/P : 920516-14-6193) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 83. LAI KOK HONG (NO. K/P : 850709-06-5137) 84. LEE NYUK MAN (NO. K/P : 790421-014-5427) 85. LIEW KAM LONG (NO. K/P : 761028-06-5225) 86. LIEW KENG LAM (NO. K/P : 510803-10-5149) 87. LIEW YEE LANG (NO. K/P : 830722-06-5635) 88. ONG HA NGOW 89. ONG MOK SANG 90. SAN CHAN SOOI (NO. K/P : 500304-06-5067) 91. TAN WAI KIAT (NO. K/P : 810808-06-5283) 92. YEAP KON FAH (NO.K/P : 701228-06-5073) 93. CHIN YOON (NO. K/P : 470926-06-5059) 94. CHUM MUN (NO. K/P : 460514-06-5045) 95. LEE AH FATT (NO. K/P : 490627-06-5137) 96. LEE MOOI FAI (NO. K/P : 501029-06-5111) 97. LOKE CHEE CHEONG (NO. K/P : 710316-06-5035) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 98. LOR KAI TONG (NO. K/P : 561015-06-5107) 99. MOO KAT CHONG (NO. K/P : 660331-06-5161) 100. NANG KA LAI (NO. K/P : 631127-06-5102) 101. NG CHEE WEI (NO. K/P : 850510-06-5551) 102. NG KAM HUNG (NO. K/P : 551015-06-5247) 103. THAM SAN CHOON (NO. K/P : 490703-07-5311) 104. WAI MUI FONG (NO. K/P : 620816-06-5278) 105. WAN SUI LAN (NO. K/P : 510919-06-5038) 106. WONG MUN CHOON (NO. K/P : 730315-06-5007) 107. YAP KIM WAH (NO. K/P : 660215-06-5957) 108. YAP MEOW CHOY (NO. K/P : 570825-06-5015) 109. YAP WAN HIN (NO. K/P : 741128-06-5697 110. YONG CHEE PIK (NO. K/P : 511202-08-5909) 111. CHIN SWEE KAY (NO. K/P : 631023-10-7195) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 AND 1. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH RAUB 2. PENGARAH PERHUTANAN NEGERI PAHANG 3. PIHAK BERKUASA NEGERI PAHANG 4. KERAJAAN NEGERI PAHANG 5. PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN PERTANIAN NEGERI PAHANG 6. ROYAL PAHANG DURIAN RESOURCES PKPP SDN BHD …RESPONDENTS AND HEARD TOGTETHER WITH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW NO : CA-25-12-10/2020 BETWEEN 1. CHAM TIAN JUN (NO. K/P : 931106-06-5757) …APPLICANTS 2. CHAN CHOO KEE (NO. K/P : 810930-06-5279) 3. CHAN CHOON LOONG (NO. K/P : 750317-06-5447) 4. CHAN FAH LOAN (NO. K/P : 791026-06-5165) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 5. CHAN KOWNG CHENG (NO. K/P : 700228-06-5079) 6. CHAN NGAN THAI (NO. K/P : 621022-06-5748) 7. CHAN WAN HENG (NO. K/P : 810821-14-5501) 8. CHEE TAI YEP (NO. K/P : 840314-06-5125) 9. CHEN YENG KONG (NO. K/P : 810617-06-5037) 10. CHEONG CHAU MENG (NO. K/P : 900916-06-5319) 11. CHIANG HAN FEI (NO. K/P : 750325-08-6723) 12. CHIANG HOI WENG (NO. K/P : 520114-08-5188) 13. CHIEW KIN LOI (NO. K/P : 580416-08-5591) 14. CHONG KOK KEONG (NO. K.P : 661224-06-5403) 15. CHONG KWAI WAH (NO. K/P : 670719-06-5175) 16. CHONG SEWA KAU (NO. K/P : 501127-06-5174) 17. CHONG WAN YOONG (NO. K/P : 610219-06-5289) 18. FONG SING HOON (NO. K/P : 691031-06-5403) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 19. HENG WEI SHAN (NO. K/P : 931123-06-5505) 20. HO YUM SIN (NO. K/P : 650116-06-5397) 21. HOO CHOK CHIAN (NO. K/P : 821103-06-5201) 22. KUM YOKE TAI (NO. K/P : 580104-06-5348) 23. LAM MAU WAH (NO. K/P : 630801-06-5557) 24. LAM WIN (NO. K/P : 540721-06-5179) 25. LAW KHAN FATT (NO. K/P : 660137-06-5199) 26. LEE CHEAU YEE (NO. K/P : 760804-08-5620) 27. LEE CHEE LOONG (NO. K/P : 671012-10-6425) 28. LEE CHEE MENG (NO. K/P : 641206-08-5661) 29. LEE CHEO SENG (NO. K/P : 711115-06-5279) 30. LEE CHEW LOONG (NO. K/P : 600905-06-5183) 31. LEE CHON WEI (NO. K/P : 841113-06-5123) 32. LEE KANG XIAN (NO. K/P : 971028-06-5319) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 33. LEE KOON WAH (NO. K/P : 621017-06-5161) 34. LEE MEY CHU (NO. K/P : 720207-05-5064) 35. LEE OI KHUAN (NO. K/P : 750629-06-5163) 36. LEE TUCK WAH (NO. K/P : 640927-06-5009) 37. LEE YOOK SENG (NO. K/P : 680816-06-5395) 38. LEONG HAN BIN (NO. K/P : 911010-06-5527) 39. LEONG KEE CHAN (NO. K/P : 580223-10-6050) 40. LEONG KOW (NO. K/P : 580904-06-5039) 41. LIEW NGA LAI (NO. K/P : 810603-06-5618) 42. LIEW NGIT YONG (NO. K/P : 680804-06-5013) 43. LIEW SOON HUNG (NO. K/P : 770316-06-5267) 44. LIEW TIAM CHOY @ LOW TIAM CHOY (NO. K/P : 541218-06-5037) 45. LIONG CHAUR JIAN (NO. K/P : 610120-08-5159) 46. LOKE HON WAI (NO. K/P : 781013-014-5685) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 47. LOW AH KAU (NO. K/P : 541129-06-5019) 48. MOK AH GAH (NO. K/P : 570718-05-5815) 49. MOK MEE @ MOK KAM SWEE (NO. K/P : 430512-08-5088) 50. NG YUEN LEE (NO. K/P : 780211-06-5358) 51. NING KA YEW (NO. K/P : 720128-06-5053) 52. NING YONG HAN (NO. K/P : 000722-08-0517) 53. ONG WENG SOON (NO. K/P : 801205-06-5503) 54. PANG SEE CHOON (NO. K/P : 700331-08-5203) 55. PANG YOKE CHING (NO. K/P : 540208-10-5686) 56. PHOON SAU LEONG (NO. K/P : 720916-10-5079) 57. SAM KOK FEI @ THAM KOK FEI (NO. K/P : 790221-06-5131) 58. SAM SWEE PHAN (NO. K/P : 850131-06-5121) 59. SHAM KIN SENG (NO. K/P : 850520-06-5395) 60. SHIEW CHEE MING (NO. K/P : 670818-06-5453) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 61. TANG WNG HEI (NO. K/P : 720328-06-5373) 62. THAM KWAI LOON (NO. K/P : 841017-06-5211) 63. CHEN YUEN KHIM (NO. K/P : 600430-06-5189) 64. TONG CHEE HONG (NO. K/P : 860522-56-5405) 65. TONG KAI SANG (NO. K/P : 620822-06-5223) 66. WAI VEN CHOI (NO. K/P : 730501-06-5131) 67. WAN CHEE KANG (NO. K/P : 820823-06-5117) 68. WAN SAI KIM (NO. K/P : 700826-06-5001) 69. WAN SAI KIN (NO. K/P : 680111-06-5205) 70. WAN SAI THEY (NO. K/P : 801012-06-5398) 71. WAN SIEW KEONG (NO. K/P : 730107-06-5221) 72. WONG CHEE HONG (NO. K/P : 851013-06-5133) 73. WONG CHEE WENG (NO. K/P : 870706-06-5877) 74. WONG KAM WAH (NO. K/P : 530917-06-5323) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 75. WONG KOOI WAH (NO. K/P : 680804-06-5603) 76. WONG KOON MENG (NO. K/P : 640920-06-5313) 77. WONG LUAN PING (NO. K/P : 971004-06-5437) 78. WONG KWAI SUM (NO. K/P : 730922-06-5391) 79. WONG MAN CHOON (NO. K/P : 700426-06-5117) 80. WONG MUN SENG (NO. K/P : 711117-06-5029) 81. WONG SIEW MING (NO. K/P : 761220-06-5137) 82. WONG VOON SOON (NO. K/P : 801113-14-6293) 83. YEE CHEE SEONG (NO. K/P : 770719-14-5579) 84. YEE SAU KAY (NO. K/P : 700906-06-5191) 85. YEE KWAN @ YU KWAN (NO. K/P : 480829-08-5321) 86. YO CHOW (NO. K/P : 570810-06-5477) 87. YONG CHEE SEONG (NO. K/P : 840804-14-5929) 88. YONG FOOK SENG (NO. K/P : 620730-08-5163) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 89. YONG LIE FUN (NO. K/P : 640613-71-5224) 90. YONG SHI YOONG (NO. K/P : 950927-06-5141) 91. YONG CHEE KING (NO. K/P : 500101-06-5489) 92. YONG YOKE MOOI (NO. K/P : 600310-08-5724) 93. YOUNG KAH KIAT (NO. K/P : 860827-06-5037) 94. YUEN CHOOI (NO. K/P : 541215-10-5523) AND 1. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH RAUB 2. PENGARAH PERHUTANAN NEGERI PAHANG 3. PIHAK BERKUASA NEGERI PAHANG 4. KERAJAAN NEGERI PAHANG 5. PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN PERTANIAN NEGERI PAHANG 6. ROYAL PAHANG DURIAN RESOURCES PKPP SDN BHD …RESPONDENTS S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT INTRODUCTION 1. The applicants are the occupiers of a said land situated around Sungai Ruan, Sungai Chalit, Sungai Klau and Tranum in the Mukim of Gali, Raub and Tras in the Mukim of Tras, Raub and Hutan Simpan Gunung Benom (“the said lands”). 2. The applicants have stated that they have occupied the said lands since 1960 and since then they have on various occasion tried to apply for the Temporary Occupation License (“TOL”) for the said lands. The 3rd Respondents is known of this fact. The Applicants have developed several durian plantations on the said lands. Thus, there were not satisfied when they received notice to vacate the said lands from the Respondents. 3. The applicants via suit CA-25-11-08/2020 (“suit 11”) and suit CA-25- 12-10/2020 (“suit 12”) has filed an application for Judicial Review against the notices that has been issued by the Respondents for the Applicants to vacate the said lands immediately. S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 4. On 23.12.2020, this honorable court has set aside the applications for Judicial Review in both suit 11 and suit 12. Which then the Applicants has appealed against the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal on 8.9.2023 has allowed their appeal and the case was remitted to High Court for rehearing. 5. When the matter was ongoing in High Court, the 6th Respondent then has filed applications to strike out the Judicial Review proceedings via Enclosure 132 in suit 11 and Enclosure 92 in suit 12. 6. This honorable court has set aside the striking out applications in Enclosure 132 in suit 11 and Enclosure 92 in suit 12 with cost Rm10,000.00 respectively. MAIN ISSUES 7. Since both Enclosure 132 in Suit 11 and Enclosure 92 in suit 12 are similar applications, by the similar party and is based on the same facts that are heard together, this ground of judgement will cover for both the cases. S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 8. The 6th Respondent has premised their application to strike out the Judicial Review based on two main reasons namely the Applicants have failed to comply with the Discovery Order dated 3.11.2022 (“the Discovery Order”) and Messrs. Douglas Yee did not have the authority to act on behalf of all the deponents and affirm relevant affidavits. 9. This court is of the view that, the Discovery Order has been duly complied by the Applicants when they have cooperated and disclosed all the existing documents in their custody, possession and power. The failure to provide documents that are not in their custody and possession could not be a reason for the Judicial Review to be strike out. 10. Besides that, the 6th Respondent has also based their application by asserting that Messrs. Douglas Yee has no authority to act on behalf of certain Applicants. The 6th Respondent has claimed as such without providing evidence to support their assertion. It is a simple rule in law that has been established in the Court of Appeal case of Than Siew Beng & Anor V Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara & Ors [2017] 5 MLJ 662 that “he who assert must prove” S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 11. The reasoning regarding authority given to Messrs. Douglas Yee is clearly an afterthought as Messrs. Douglas Yee has represented all the Applicants since the filing of Judicial Review in 2020 itself. During the 3 years of this case, the 6th Respondent or any other party being the Applicants themselves have never raised any issue regarding authority given to Messrs. Douglas Yee. Thus, this court do not take into consideration any of the reasoning brought up by the 6th Respondent on a very later stage. Furthermore, such contention was also not supported with any given evidence. 12. On these grounds alone, this court has decided to set aside Enclosure 132 in Suit 11 and Enclosure 92 in suit 12. 13. The 6th Respondent has also failed to give this court a strong reason as to why the Judicial Review must be struck out. 14. On the other hand, it is a known fact that the Court of Appeal via order dated 8.9.2021 has allowed the Applicants appeal for the Judicial Review to be heard. When such order has been given, this Court is tied down with the doctrine of stare decisis. S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 15. This means that, this Court could not on simple and frivolous ground strike out the Judicial Review because the Court of Appeal verily believes that there is a strong ground for the Judicial Review to be heard. 16. If this court allows the application on Enclosure 132 in suit 11 and Enclosure 92 in suit 12, it would be as if this court is going against the order that has been drawn out by the Court of Appeal. 17. The 6th Respondent has failed to give cogent reasons as to why the Application of Judicial Review must be struck out. CONCLUSION 18. Therefore, this honorable court has decided to set aside Enclosure 132 in suit 11 and Enclosure 92 in suit 12 with cost amounting to RM10,000.00 respectively. t.t. ZAINAL AZMAN BIN AB AZIZ JUDGE HIGH COURT MALAYA OF KUANTAN PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR DATED : 27 OCTOBER 2023 S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Applicant’s Solicitors: Mr Brendon Siva together with Mr Siew Choon Jern, Mrs Chen Chiu Hua dan Mrs Lim Pit Feng Tetuan Douglas Yee C-11-3A, 3 Two Square, No. 2 Jalan 19/1 46300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Email : info@douglasyee.com Ref. : S1401/20 Respondent’s 1 – 4 Solicitors: Mrs Dorah binti Abdul Kadir bersama Mr Abdul Hafiz Razat Penolong Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pahang Tingkat 3, Blok B, Wisma Sri Pahang 25000 Kuantan, Pahang Email : hafiz.razat@agc.gov.my Ref. : PUN.PHG.F/100/32/1/33/2021 Respondent 5 Solicitor: Mr Mohd Rosli bin Yusof. Tetuan Mohd Najid & Partners B-30, Tingkat Bawah & Tingkat 1 S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Jalan Bukit Sekilau, PO BOX 400 25200 Kuantan, Pahang Email : mnplaw@yahoo.com Ref : MNP/1/CAVEAT/IND/706/11/MRY/azira Respondent’s 6 Solicitors: Tan Sri Cecil Abraham together with Mr Sunil Abraham, Mrs Mudzalifah Shabudin dan Mr Irwan Ismail Tetuan Cecil Abraham & Partners Suit 12.01, Level 12 Menara 1MK 1 Jalan Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur Email: general@cecilabraham.com Ref. : 21000771( SA/NMS/MII) S/N ETAfkM2r9UeDuEM6WUn03g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCC-118-03/2023

PLAINTIF RHB Private Equity Holdings Sdn Bhd DEFENDAN 1. ) Peter Charles Smerling 2. ) Zuraidah Bakerche Smerling

Summary Judgment application allowed - Claim based on a Put-Option Agreement - Whether there was a representation that the Plaintiff would always provide capital to the company - Whether by the Plaintiff's previous oppression action - Plaintiff is precluded from seeking this judgment

14/12/2023

YA Tuan Ong Chee Kwan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b2b8ea54-9a3b-417c-b87d-2704970656e0&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO.: WA-22NCC-118-03/2023 BETWEEN RHB PRIVATE EQUITY HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. [Company No.: 199801002563(458689-W)] … PLAINTIFF AND 1. PETER CHARLES SMERLING (United States of America Passport No.: 422022633) 2. ZURAIDAH BAKERCHE SMERLING (Singapore NRIC No.: S7139318-F) …DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is my judgment in respect of the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment for a claim arising from a Put Option Agreement. [2] The Defendants raised only 2 triable issues both of which did not find any favour from this Court. 14/12/2023 15:58:40 WA-22NCC-118-03/2023 Kand. 37 S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Background Facts [3] The Defendants are husband and wife. The 2nd Defendant, is at all material time, a proxy to her husband, the 1st Defendant. [4] In 2012, the 1st Defendant came to know about the business of L&S Cosmetic and Toiletries (M) Sdn. Bhd. (“LSSB”) and LSSB’s wholly subsidiary, Citychemo Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd. (“CMSB”). These companies are involved in the manufacture and supply of cosmetic products and hair shampoo. The previous owner was one Seng San Bing who represented to the 1st Defendant that LSSB’s and CMSB’s revenue were substantially contributed from Cosway’s and Summit’s orders. [5] The 1st Defendant looked for investors to acquire the two companies. The Plaintiff then was interested to finance and become a shareholder of the Defendants’ company. [6] Negotiations took place between parties. It is the Defendants’ case that the Plaintiff, being the private equity entity, represented to the 1st Defendant that it would be responsible for funding the acquisition of LSSB and CMSB as well as to provide additional funds in LSSB and CMSB from time to time after the completion of the acquisition. [7] As a result of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff and Defendants entered a Shareholders’ Agreement (“SSA”), a Subscription Agreement (“SA”) and a Put Option Agreement (“POA”). It was agreed that one Satin Straits Sdn. Bhd. (“SSSB”) shall act as a special vehicle company to acquire LSSB and CMSB under which the Plaintiff owns S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 45,000,000 redeemable convertible preference shares (“the Shares”) in SSSB. [8] In or around 2015, LSSB was technically insolvent and needed funds to continue its business. The request was made to the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant. However, the Plaintiff did not accede to the 1st Defendant’s request because it was not prepared to increase its exposure in this business anymore. [9] The Plaintiff’s representative and the Defendants did a fund-raising exercise which led to one Tan Boon Seng (“Tan”) investing in LSSB through his company, Proton Generasi Sdn. Bhd. (“PGSB”). [10] Tan, through PGSB then owned 50% of LSSB whereas SSSB owned the other half. After Tan’s initial investment, the fund was still insufficient to grow the businesses of LSSB and CMSB. As of 2019, Tan then further invested a sum of RM 29 million which resulted in a dilution of shares belonging to SSSB in LSSB. [11] In 2019, the Plaintiff filed an oppression action against the Defendants, Tan and PGSB in the High Court vide Civil Suit No. WA-22NCC-177-04/2019 (“CS177”) seeking relief that the Shares be bought out in the sum of RM 111,974,400.00. The Plaintiff’s action was dismissed. The finding of the High Court was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal. [12] Having failed in its oppression action, the Plaintiff then commenced this action for specific performance against the Defendants under S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 the POA to compel the Defendants to purchase the Shares in the sum of RM 268,220,901.50. Salient terms of POA [13] The terms of the POA between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are clear. Essentially the POA gives the Plaintiff the right to ‘put’ the Shares to the Defendants and require the Defendants to purchase the Shares from the Plaintiff at the agreed price. [14] The Plaintiff had invested RM45 million in the Defendants’ company, SSSB by subscribing to the Shares pursuant to the SA. [15] In consideration of, amongst others, the Plaintiff entering into the SA, the Defendants irrevocably granted to the Plaintiff the option to require the Defendants to purchase from the Plaintiff the Shares at the Put Option Price [see Clause 3.1, Put Option Agreement]. [16] The Put Option Price is also defined in Clause 1.1 of the POA. Essentially, it is the subscription price of the Shares and a premium at 25% of internal rate of return per annum compounded for the period of investment. The calculation for the Put Option Price amounting to RM268,220,901.50. [17] The Plaintiff contended that it is entitled to exercise the Put Option in the event SSSB fails to redeem the Shares and the default and or breach continues for more than 90 days from the date of notice given by RHB [see: Clause 4.1(a), Put Option Agreement]. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Plaintiff exercises Put Option [18] As SSSB did not redeem the Shares, the Plaintiff had proceeded to exercise the Put Option under the POA. [19] By a notice dated 26.9.2022, the Plaintiff required the Defendants to, as agreed, purchase the Shares from the Plaintiff at the Put Option Price of RM268,220,901.50 within 30 days from the date of the notice. The Defendants, in breach of the POA, failed to take any steps to do so. [20] By a letter dated 10.1.2023, the Plaintiff through their solicitors, Messrs. Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, gave the Defendants another 30 days to comply with their obligations under the POA. The Defendants failed to do so, hence this legal action and the present application under Enclosure 8 for summary judgment. Triable Issues [21] The Defendants raised 2 triable issues to resist the summary judgment application. [22] First, it is the Defendants’ case that they were at the material time induced by the Plaintiff’s representations into entering the POA. These representations turn out to be false. Of significance is the representation that the Plaintiff would provide additional capital in SSSB’s subsidiary, namely LSSB, and LSSB’s subsidiary, namely CMSB even after acquiring the Shares. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [23] The Defendants contended that there is a prima facie circumstantial evidence on the aforesaid pleaded matter. It is this. Prior to the commencement of the present suit, the Plaintiff had prosecuted the abovementioned claim of minority oppression against the shareholders of SSSB and its subsidiary LSSB, including the Defendants here. [24] In CS177, the Plaintiff had prayed for a Buy Out of the Shares by the Defendants therein. This is significant because instead of exercising its’ put-option under the POA, the Plaintiff elected to embark on a complex journey of having the Shares disposed of by alleging oppression. [25] The CS177 suit was dismissed by the Court after a full trial. After having failed to pursue its relief of a buyout, the Plaintiff now resorted to the POA as a backdoor attempt to have the Shares disposed of. [26] It was contended that after having elected to pursue a relief for a Buy Out in the oppression suit CS177 vide a full trial, it is now trying to secure a summary judgment for the disposal of the same subject matter. It gives rise to a reasonable inference in the Defendants’ favour, that the Plaintiff must have realised that there was a perceived difficulty in enforcing the POA due to the representations which it had made to the Defendants. In other words, it was contended that the Plaintiff at all material times knew there were some factors vitiating the Defendants’ free consent when they entered into the POA. This defence, if proven at trial, is a complete defence to a specific performance action. Reference was made to S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the case of Yap Khay Cheong Sdn Bhd v Susan George TM George [2018] 5 CLJ 345 whereby the Court of Appeal held as follows: - “[16] The second SPA, since it was found by the learned trial judge to have been executed without free consent and by undue influence, is voidable at the option of the defendant, as provided under s. 19(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. The defendant had correctly exercised her right to vitiate the second SPA, hence there was no valid contract to enforce any specific relief sought by the plaintiff. It was for this reason that we agreed with the learned judge that, no specific relief is available to the plaintiff.” [See also: - Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Irham Niaga Sdn Bhd [2011] 1 MLJ 752]. [27] In fact, during the trial of CS177, the Plaintiff’s witness testified to the Plaintiff’s failure to provide additional capital in LSSB and its subsidiary CMSB. According to her testimony, the Plaintiff made the decision not to provide additional capital because of its fear of exposure. The High Court held in CS177 that as a result of the Plaintiff’s aforesaid decision, other investors had to be brought in and hence the dilution of the Plaintiff’s stake in LSSB held through SSSB. [28] In CS177, the Plaintiff did not take the position that it was not bound to provide capital. This, again, shows a prima facie circumstantial evidence of the Defendants’ pleaded case. [29] With respect to learned counsel for the Defendants, I see no merits in the contentions raised. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [30] The Defendants say the POA is voidable. They alleged that the Plaintiff had verbally represented that it would inject additional funds from time to time but did not do so. [31] This allegation is not only inherently improbable as no investor is able to commit to providing additional unlimited funds for an unlimited time, it is also inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence. [32] There is nothing in the POA (or even the SA and or the SSA) to indicate that the Plaintiff will continue to provide additional funds. [33] There is nothing in the POA (or even the SA and or the SSA) to indicate that the Plaintiff will financially support and continue to invest in SSSB and its subsidiaries as and when needed. [34] As aptly put by Kang Hwee Gee J (as his Lordship then was) in Sime Bank Bhd (formerly known as United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd) v Kuala Lumpur City Securities Sdn Bhd [2001] 5 MLJ 670 at page 683: “The put option agreement, it is clear to me, is a highly formal, properly negotiated and professionally drawn up document by practitioners of law. It imposes upon the defendant the liability to pay out at its worst a very large sum of money should the borrower default on the loan and the plaintiff decides to exercise the option. Correspondingly, for the put option that it gave to the plaintiff, the defendant stands to gain a put option fee of 2% of the said sum — a hefty RM3.68m from the borrower. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 It would be totally inconceivable in my view, that for a contract of such importance, the contracting parties would not have drafted into the put option agreement all the essential terms and conditions they had agreed upon with accuracy and certainty, so as to leave little or none to construction in the event of a dispute. Least of all it is inconceivable that they would have left unsaid those other terms and conditions they had orally agreed upon that would bind them. In the event, I would have to find that the agreement is conclusive of all the essential terms that would govern their contractual relationship at the time they signed it. It follows that any such pre-contract promises, representations and understandings, verbal or otherwise, whether made by Mr Robert Young, Ms Chan Mo Lin or by anyone else, even if true, are clearly extrinsic evidence which can never be allowed into evidence to add, subtract, vary or contradict the black and white terms and conditions of the put option agreement in a trial. Having to exclude such extrinsic evidence, it follows that the parties would have to be bound by the terms embodied within the four corners of the put option agreement read wherever necessary (by reason of cl 16 of the agreement), in conjunction with the facility agreement and the charge of securities.” (emphasis added) [35] The POA expressly sets out the parties’ representations made in Clause 7. There is clearly no such representation as now alleged by the Defendants. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [36] The POJ also contains an ‘entire agreement clause’ in Clause 18 – all the terms and conditions agreed upon are embodied in the agreement. [37] Accordingly, there is no basis to this desperate attempt by the Defendants to evade their legal obligations under the POA. These are legal obligations that they were happy to assume when they wanted the Plaintiff’s investment of RM45 million. [38] In fact, the Defendants were unable to produce any contemporaneous communications alluding to the alleged representation. Furthermore, no steps were ever taken to rescind the POA on the ground of misrepresentation as claimed. Previous minority oppression proceedings [39] The Defendants raised the previous minority oppression proceedings in Suit CS177 taken by the Plaintiff which has been dismissed by the Courts. [40] However, these previous proceedings were on completely different footings and cause of action. In the previous proceedings, the Plaintiff was seeking relief as a minority shareholder for alleged oppression. In the present proceedings, the Plaintiff is exercising its contractual rights under the POA. The Put Option had not been exercised previously. It was irrelevant to the minority oppression proceedings and could not in any case have been raised there. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [41] Res judicata does not arise as the cause of action and issues raised in this suit are separate and entirely different from the previous oppression proceedings. [See: Loh Holdings Sdn Bhd v Peglin Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1984] 2 MLJ 105, FC] [42] In addition, the Defendants contended that in the circumstances of the present action, it is not fit and proper for a decree of specific performance. This defence was founded on section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1950. It has two folds. [43] It is said that a decree of specific performance would be giving an unfair advantage to the Plaintiff. This is because in the event that a decree of specific performance is granted, the Plaintiff will be given an unfair advantage over the full actual and or potential value of shares in SSSB as if SSSB still wholly owns LSSB. In fact, it is not the case now. SSSB, after the dilution, only owns approximately less than 10% of LSSB. It is said that this directly affects the value of SSSB’s shares. [44] To compound matters, this unfair advantage is intertwined with the issue of the Plaintiff’s misrepresentation. Had the Plaintiff fulfilled its representation by providing an additional capital, a third-party investor would not have been involved in the business of LSSB which had affected the value of SSSB. [45] In the case of LY Furniture Sdn. Bhd. v Lifestyle Enterprise LY [2015] 1 LNS 1557, the Court of Appeal held as follows: - S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “[85] It follows that section 21(b) which also falls under Chapter II of the SRA is also applicable. This section requires the court to consider as relevant factors the relative hardships caused by the enforcement or non-enforcement of the contract. [86] As such the extreme position taken by Lifestyle, namely that factors like hardship and other equitable considerations are irrelevant to the exercise of discretion by the court, is less than convincing. It would not be tenable for a court to simply exclude from the sphere of its consideration such factors as hardship and reasonableness in determining whether or not a negative undertaking or covenant in a contract ought in fact to be enforced.” [46] Also, it is contended that a decree of specific performance would involve some hardship on the Defendants. [47] The Put-Option Price stated in the POA was derived from the information given by the previous owner of LSSB and CMSB, Seng San Bing. It turned out that the information was false. Seng San Bin was sued by SSSB for his misrepresentation as Seng San Bin suppressed material facts on the orders of Cosway and Summit from the 1st Defendant through SSSB. This Civil Suit was filed in the High Court which found liability in favour of SSSB but only awarded nominal damages. [See: Satin Straits Sdn. Bhd. Seng San Bin [2020] 8 MLJ 553] [48] The contention was that the Defendants could not have foreseen the aforesaid circumstances that Seng San Bing would make a false misrepresentation to the Defendants which the same led to fixing the Put Option Price in the POA. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [49] Again, with respect, the is also no merits to the issue. [50] The contention is inextricably linked to the alleged misrepresentation which I have dismissed above and with that, the contention by the Defendants simply cannot be sustained. [51] As regards the Put Option Price of the Shares under the POA, this is a commercial matter between the parties and this Court will not interfere with the terms of the POA setting out the manner in which the Put Option Price is to be computed. Conclusion [52] Accordingly, for the reasons above, this Court grants the Plaintiff an order in terms of the application for summary judgment under Enclosure 8 with costs. Dated the 12th day of December 2023 ONG CHEE KWAN Judge of the High Court of Malaya High Court of Kuala Lumpur, NCC2 S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Counsel: 1. Sean Yeow together with Andrea Chew and Ang Yi Shan (PDK) for Plaintiff Messrs. Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill (Kuala Lumpur) 2. Dato' C. K. Lim together with Damien Chan, Ian Hannibal, Jeff Ng and Lee Yu Jun (PDK) for Defendants Messrs. Damien Chan, Hannibal & Ng Chambers (Kuala Lumpur) Case Reference: 1. Yap Khay Cheong Sdn Bhd v Susan George TM George [2018] 5 CLJ 345 2. Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Irham Niaga Sdn Bhd [2011] 1 MLJ 752 3. Sime Bank Bhd (formerly known as United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd) v Kuala Lumpur City Securities Sdn Bhd [2001] 5 MLJ 670 4. Loh Holdings Sdn Bhd v Peglin Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1984] 2 MLJ 105 5. LY Furniture Sdn. Bhd. v Lifestyle Enterprise LY [2015] 1 LNS 1557 6. Satin Straits Sdn. Bhd. Seng San Bin [2020] 8 MLJ 553 Legislation Reference: 1. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CB-22NCvC-4-04/2023

PLAINTIF VIJAYA KUMAR A/L CHELLAPAN DEFENDAN 1. ) MAJLIS DAERAH CAMERON HIGHLANDS 2. ) SYARIKAT PEMBINAAN CAMERON HIGHLANDS JAYA SDN BHD

Permohonan pembatalan pliding di bawah A 18 k 19 KKM 2012 - Alasan penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah - Defendan Pertama badan awam sepatutnya prosiding semakan kehakiman bukannya writ saman - Permohonan dibenarkan dengan kos.

14/12/2023

YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4ec11a5c-34e1-4ad0-af28-469b0409e1d9&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - CB-22NCVC-4-04-2023 VIJAYA KUMAR CHELLAPAN v MD CAMERON HIGHLANDS - final 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR GUAMAN SIVIL NO: CB-22NCvC-4-04/2023 ANTARA VIJAYA KUMAR A/L CHELLAPAN (NO. K/P: 610903-06-5357) … PLAINTIF DAN 1. MAJLIS DAERAH CAMERON HIGHLANDS 2. SYARIKAT PEMBINAAN CAMERON HIGHLANDS JAYA SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 164296) … DEFENDAN- DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Ini adalah permohonan Defendan Pertama untuk writ saman dan penyata tuntutan bertarikh 11.04.2023 dibatalkan di bawah Aturan 18 kaedah 9 (1) (a), (b), (c) dan/atau (d) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012. 14/12/2023 15:24:21 CB-22NCvC-4-04/2023 Kand. 46 S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] Alasan permohonan ini ialah tuntutan Plaintif tidak mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang munasabah, tuntutan Plaintif mengaibkan, remeh atau menyusahkan, tuntutan Plaintif boleh menjejaskan, menghalang atau melengahkan perbicaraan dan tuntutan Plaintif adalah suatu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. [3] Defendan Pertama adalah Majlis Daerah Cameron Highlands iaitu sebuah pihak berkuasa tempatan di bawah Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976. Dalam affidavit sokongan permohonan yang dideposkan oleh Nor Suaadah binti Alias menyatakan bahawa Plaintif telah memfailkan tuntutan terhadap Defendan bagi mencabar kelulusan dan Kebenaran Merancang oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua ke atas tanah hakmilik No. HSD 181, PT Nombor 39, dahulunya dikenali sebagai Lot 55 PT 39 Bandar Brinchang, Daerah Cameron Highlands. [4] Urusan tindakan Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua telah diperturunkan oleh Nor Suaadah binti Alias dalam affidavit sokongannya di perenggan 6.1 hingga 6.11. Urusan di antara Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua telah diakhiri dengan kelulusan Kebenaran Merancang kepada Defendan Kedua yang diluluskan oleh Defendan Pertama pada 19.05.2016. [5] Defendan Pertama dalam affidavit sokongan menyatakan bahawa Plaintif tidak boleh meneruskan tuntutan kepada Defendan Pertama ekoran daripada telah melebihi tempoh had masa seperti yang S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 dinyatakan dalam Akta Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948 dan dibaca bersama Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976 serta Akta Had Masa 1953. [6] Di samping itu Plaintif juga dikatakan tidak dapat menyatakan dalam penyataan tuntutan tersebut perbuatan tort yang dilakukan oleh Defendan Pertama dan siapakah yang melakukan tort tersebut. Plaintif dalam affidavit balasan yang diikrarkan oleh Vijaya Kumar a/l Chellapan menyatakan bahawa tindakan Plaintif kepada Defendan Pertama adalah sesuatu yang tepat dan adil kerana kelulusan Kebenaran Merancang oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua telah mengakibatkan kacau ganggu terhadap Plaintif dari segi penggunaan jalan dan dari keselamatan di hadapan rumah Plaintif. [7] Dalam affidavit tersebut juga telah dirujuk nota prosiding perbicaraan di Mahkamah Sesyen Raub Guaman Sivil No. CC-153-1- 11/2021 yang telah mengesahkah bahawa kelulusan Kebenaran Merancang telah menyebabkan gangguan dan kacau ganggu di hadapan rumah Plaintif. [8] Plaintif juga menenekankan bahawa tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama bukanlah semata-mata tindakan Plaintif kepada pihak berkuasa awam tetapi juga tindakan kepada Defendan Kedua yang telah menjalankan projek pembangunan tersebut sehingga menyebabkan kacau ganggu yang boleh mengancam keselamatan Plaintif dan penduduk lain di kawasan tersebut. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [9] Pada perenggan 9 (c) affidavit Vijaya Kumar telah dinyatakan seperti berikut: “c. proses semakan kehakiman tidak sesuai atau tidak wajar digunakan untuk Mahkamah yang mulia ini dalam mendapati bahawa Kebenaran Merancang (KM) tersebut yang melanggar keperluan statutori telah menjadi satu kacau ganggu awam terhadap saya dan penduduk- penduduk di kawasan perumahan tersebut. Perbicaraan penuh adalah diperlukan untuk penentuan isu ini.” [10] Plaintif juga menyatakan bahawa tindakan terhadap Defendan Pertama bukanlah suatu percubaan untuk menggunakan pintu belakang tetapi ia adalah berdasarkan kepada nas undang-undang dan fakta bahawa penduduk-penduduk lain diganggu dari segi penggunaan laluan dan keselamatan mereka adalah terjejas akibat daripada Kebenaran Merancang yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Pertama. Plaintif juga menegaskan bahawa tindakan ini tidak dihalang oleh Akta Had Masa 1953. Analisa [11] Berdasarkan kepada affidavit-affidavit yang difailkan adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa isu dalam kes ini adalah seperti berikut: S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (a) adakah Plaintif tidak mempunyai kausa tindakan terhadap Defendan Pertama yang mewajarkan tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama dibatalkan; dan (b) adakah tindakan Plaintif memfailkan tuntutan ini terhadap Defendan Pertama melalui writ saman dan bukannya permohonan semakan kehakiman adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah yang mewajarkan tindakan Plaintif dibatalkan. Isu (a) [12] Dalam kes ini adalah jelas dan nyata bahawa penyata tuntutan Plaintif kepada Defendan Pertama menunjukkan bahawa kaitan yang ditunjukkan oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama ialah tindakan Defendan Pertama mengeluarkan Kebenaran Merancang kepada Defendan Kedua. Berdasarkan kepada Kebenaran Merancang tersebut Defendan Kedua telah mengambil tindakan yang dikatakan menjejaskan Plaintif. Apa yang jelas ialah tiada perhubungan secara langsung di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama. Isu berkaitan Defendan Pertama timbul apabila tindakan-tindakan Defendan Kedua telah memberi kesan kepada Plaintif. Tindakan Defendan Kedua itu sedemikian ekoran daripada Kebenaran Merancang yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua. [13] Persoalannya ialah adakah fakta hubungan di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama tersebut telah mewujudkan satu kausa tindakan. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Dalam hal ini adalah wajar untuk Mahkamah ini meneliti apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan kausa tindakan. Ini telah dijelaskan dalam kes Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 Q.B 232 Lord Diplock menyatakan seperti berikut: “A cause of action is simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. Historically, the means by which the remedy was obtained varied with the nature of the factual situation and causes of action were divided into categories according to the "form of action" by which the remedy was obtained in the particular kind of factual situation which constituted the cause of action.” [14] Ia juga dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Nasri v Mesah [1971] 1 MLJ 32 seperti berikut: “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 M.R. in Read v Brown (1888) 22 QBD 128 131). In Reeves v Butcher (1891) 2 QB 590 511 Lindley L.J. 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 S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 could first have been recovered by action. The right to bring an action may arise on various events; but it has always been held that the statute runs from the earliest time at which an action could be brought." [15] Ia juga dibincangkan dalam kes Newacres Sdn Bhd v Sri Alam Sdn Bhd [1991] 3 MLJ 474 dan Credit Corporation (M) Bhd v Fong Tak Sin [1991] 1 MLJ 409. [16] Persoalannya dalam kes ini adakah terdapat apa-apa fakta yang menunjukkan perhubungan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama yang mana fakta-fakta tersebut perlu dibuktikan bagi membolehkan pihak Plaintif memperolehi penghakiman terhadap Defendan Pertama. Apa yang adalah ialah perhubungan di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Kedua yang mana fakta-fakta yang dibuktikan kelak memungkinkan Plaintif mendapat penghakiman terhadap Defendan Kedua. Apa yang ada bagi Defendan Pertama ialah fakta bahawa ia adalah merupakan sebuah pihak berkuasa tempatan yang ditubuhkan di bawah Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976 yang menjalankan bidang kuasa yang diperuntukkan oleh Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976 dan undang-undang bertulis yang lain. Keterangan dalam affidavit tidak menunjukkan bahawa terdapat perhubungan di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama secara langsung. Ia hanya dapat dikaitkan dengan tindakan Defendan menjalankan bidang kuasanya di bawah undang-undang. Sekiranya fakta tersebut dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah berkenaan Defendan Pertama dan berjaya dibuktikan ia tidak akan membolehkan Mahkamah memberi apa-apa remedi berdasarkan kepada keterangan-keterangan tersebut. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Ia tidak berasaskan kepada satu kausa tindakan tort, kontrak atau tuntutan sivil yang lain. [17] Oleh yang demikian berdasarkan definisi klasik kausa tindakan seperti yang dinyatakan dalam kes Letang v Cooper (supra) tersebut Mahkamah mendapati tiada kausa tindakan di antara Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dalam kes ini bagi membolehkan dijadikan asas untuk suatu tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama. Isu (b) [18] Adakah permohonan ini adalah suatu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah? Ini adalah disebabkan sekiranya pihak Plaintif tidak berpuas hati dengan apa-apa tindakan yang dilakukan oleh Defendan Pertama sebagai badan awam Plaintif seharusnya mengemukakan permohonan semakan kehakiman di bawah Aturan 53 KKM 2012. [19] Namun demikian Mahkamah juga perlu menimbangkan hujahan peguam Plaintif yang menyatakan bahawa Plaintif mempunyai tindakan individu kepada Defendan Pertama selain daripada tindakan semakan kehakiman. [20] Dalam hal ini kedua-dua peguam Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama telah merujuk kepada kes Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 145. Penelitian kepada kes tersebut menunjukkan bahawa beberapa isu awalan perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah bagi menentukan sama ada S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 suatu tindakan itu boleh dikemukakan melalui suatu semakan kehakiman atau melalui writ atau saman pemula. Persoalan asas yang perlu dikemukakan adalah sama ada Plaintif mempunyai asas untuk suatu tindakan semakan kehakiman. Sekiranya Plaintif tidak mempunyai hak untuk suatu tindakan semakan kehakiman maka tindakan boleh dimulakan melalui writ ataupun saman pemula bagi membolehkan Plaintif memulakan suatu tindakan semakan kehakiman mesti terdapat unsur undang-undang awam terhadap keputusan yang dibuat oleh pihak Defendan Pertama. Sekiranya tiada dapat ditunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya elemen undang-undang awam tersebut maka Plaintif tidak sewajarnya mengambil tindakan semakan kehakiman tetapi boleh memfailkan oleh writ atau saman pemula. Ini telah dirumuskan dengan menarik di perenggan [21] seperti berikut: “[21] In view of this, let us begin by first asking ourselves a preliminary question: is the appellant's complaint or grievance amenable for judicial review (before even considering whether the procedure adopted by him is appropriate). If his complaint is not amenable for judicial review then he can commence his action by writ or originating summons; there is no issue on the process. So first we have to determine the parameter of matters amenable for judicial review. It is widely accepted that not every decision made by an authoritative body is suitable for judicial review. To qualify there must be sufficient public law element in the decision made. For this, it is necessary to examine both the source of the power and the nature of the decision made; whether the decision was made under a S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 statutory power (see para 61 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed, 2001 Reissue) Vol 1(1). To illustrate this, we will refer to a number of authorities involving dismissal from service by an authority.” [21] Namun demikian dalam kes Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors (supra) Mahkamah juga perlu memberi perhatian bahawa terdapat keadaan di mana kedua-dua unsur undang-undang awam dan undang-undang persendirian wujud dalam suatu keputusan yang dibuat oleh badan awam. [22] Sekiranya terdapat dua unsur undang-undang awam dan undang- undang persendirian maka Mahkamah perlu melihat undang-undang manakah yang lebih terserlah. Jika ia adalah melibatkan undang- undang awam, maka semakan kehakiman boleh difailkan dan sekiranya sebaliknya tindakan writ dan saman boleh dikemukakan oleh Plaintif. Hal ini telah dirumuskan dengan jelas oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors (supra) seperti berikut: “[61] We observed that a challenge on the use of appropriate procedure is very much fact based. Thus, it is necessary for a judge when deciding on such matter to first ascertain whether there is a public law element in the dispute. If the claim for infringement is based solely on substantive principles of public law then the appropriate process should be by way of O S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 53 of the RHC. If it is a mixture of public and private law then the court must ascertain which of the two is more predominant. If it has substantial public law element then the procedure under O 53 of the RHC must be adopted. Otherwise it may be set aside on ground that it abuses the court's process. But if the matter is under private law though concerning a public authority, the mode to commence such action under O 53 of the RHC is not suitable. Aside from this, there could be other circumstances like the kind in YAB Dato' Dr Zambry. Much depends on the facts of the case. But generally the court should be circumspect in allowing a matter which should be by way of O 53 of the RHC to proceed in another form. To say that it is opened to any applicant seeking judicial review to elect any mode he prefers, as implied in Kuching Waterfront, would, in our considered opinion, be rendering O 53 of the RHC redundant. This is certainly not the intention of the drafters of this rule who had a purpose in mind. When the purpose of this rule is in the interest of good administration then this rule must be adhered to except in the limited and exceptional circumstances discussed.” [23] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes YAB Dato' Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir & Ors v YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu (Attorney General Malaysia, intervener) [2009] 4 MLJ 24 telah menyatakan bahawa tindakan Pemohon untuk pengisytiharan bahawa penggantungan daripada Dewan Undangan Negeri boleh difailkan melalui writ dan menolak bantahan yang menyatakan semakan S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 kehakiman perlu dibuat di bawah Aturan 53 KKM 2012. Ini dinyatakan seperti berikut: “[30] Clearly the challenge of the applicants to their suspension from the Legislative Assembly is a matter that affects their legal status within the meaning of s 41. They are therefore entitled to seek a declaration of their legal right pursuant to O 15 r 16. It cannot be argued that they ought to have proceeded under O 53 itself for declaratory relief for two reasons. Firstly, O 53 does not say it is the exclusive provision for the grant of declaratory relief as stated by Lord Diplock in O'Reilly v Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124 at p 1134 in the following words: My Lords, O 53 does not expressly provide that procedure by application for judicial review shall be the exclusive procedure available by which the remedy of a declaration or injunction may be obtained for infringement of rights that are entitled to protection under public law; nor does s 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. There is great variation between individual cases that fall within O 53 and the Rules of Committee and subsequently the legislature were, I think, for this reason content to rely on the express and the inherent power of the High Court, exercised on a case to case basis, to prevent abuse of its process whatever might be the form taken by that abuse. Accordingly, I do not think that Your Lordships would be wise to use this as an occasion to lay down categories of S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 cases in which it would necessarily always be an abuse to seek in an action begun by writ or originating summons a remedy against infringement of rights of the individual that are entitled to protection in public law. [31] Secondly, when the Specific Relief Act 1950 was enacted O 53 was not in existence and, thus, adherence to it could not have been contemplated. [32] Be that as it may, and in any event, in cases of this nature the most appropriate form of relief is by way of declaration. In support reference is made to The Declaratory Judgment (2nd Ed) by Lord Woolf where it says at p 90: The courts are, and should be, acutely sensitive not to impinge on the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Parliament. In litigation close to the sometimes indistinct boundary between the respective jurisdictions of the courts and Parliament, the declaratory power of the courts is particularly important since a declaration will often be the only remedy they will be willing or able to grant (R v HM Treasury, ex p Smedley [1985] QB 657 at 672 and R v Boundary Commission, ex p Foot [1983] 1 QB 600 at 634. Prerogative remedies and injunctions are unsuitable, and almost certainly unavailable, to control parliamentary proceedings (R v Hastings Local Board of Health [1865] 6 B & S 401 distinguished in R v Electricity Commissioners [1924] 1 KB 171 at 209 and p 465 et S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 seq; Wade: Administrative Law (6th Ed 1988), at pp 590– 591, p 645; de Smith: Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Ed 1980) at pp 387, 395. Merricks v Healthcrat-Amoroy [1955] Ch 567; Harpar v The Home Secretary [1955] Ch 238; R v Department of Transport (Nos 1 and 2), ex p Factortane [1990] 2 AC 85). Such jurisdiction as the courts have to grant declaratory relief in relation to Parliament is especially constrained in two areas, the first relating to parliamentary privilege, and the second to parliamentary legislation and resolutions. [33] Accordingly, we dismissed the objection raised and proceeded to hear the motion.” [24] Penelitian kepada kes YAB Dato' Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir & Ors v YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu (Attorney General Malaysia, intervener) (supra) didapati bahawa remedi yang dipohon seperti yang dinyatakan di perenggan [9] kes tersebut seperti berikut: “[9] The applicants then filed an Originating Summons No 24–247 of 2009 dated 2 March 2009 at the High Court in Ipoh seeking, inter alia, the following orders: (a) (1) A declaration that the decision of the first respondent in suspending and prohibiting the first applicant from attending the State Legislative Assembly for a period S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 of 18 months is against the Laws of the Constitution of Perak and is accordingly null and void; (2) A declaration that the decision of the first respondent in suspending and prohibiting the first applicant from attending the sitting of the State Legislative Assembly for a period of 18 months is ultra vires the Laws of the Constitution of Perak, the Standing Orders of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak, the Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment, 1959 and/or all related laws and is accordingly null and void; (3) A declaration that the first respondent's act of suspending and prohibiting the first applicant from attending the sitting of the State Legislative Assembly for a period of 18 months is illegal; (4) A declaration that the decision of the first respondent in suspending and prohibiting the second to the seventh applicants from attending the sitting of the State Legislative Assembly for a period of 12 months is against the Laws of the Constitution of Perak and is accordingly null and void; (5) A declaration that the decision of the first respondent in suspending and prohibiting the second to the seventh applicants from attending the sitting of the S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 State Legislative Assembly for a period of 12 months is ultra vires the Laws of the Constitution of Perak, the Standing Orders of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak, the Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment, 1950 and/or all related laws and is accordingly null and void; (6) A declaration that the first respondent's act of suspending and prohibiting the second to the seventh applicants from attending the sitting of the State Assembly for a period of 12 months is illegal; (7) Further, a declaration that the applicants are entitled to attend and take part in all State Assembly sittings and to carry out all their functions and duties therein; (8) Further, a declaration that the second respondent is not bound by the decision of the first respondent in suspending and prohibiting the applicants from attending the sitting of the second respondent; (9) Further, a declaration that the second respondent is not bound by any directions, order and/or guidelines of the first respondent arising from or relating to the decision of the first respondent of 18 February 2009; and S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (10) Such further or other relief that the court deems fit and proper.” [25] Dalam kes ini adalah wajar untuk melihat apakah remedy yang dipohon oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama. Ini dapat dilihat dalam perenggan 47 (i) dan (ii) penyata tuntutan Plaintif seperti berikut: (i) Satu deklarasi bahawa Kebenaran Merancang yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua pada 21.10.2016 dan lanjutan Kebenaran Merancang pada 8.2.2019 itu tidak mematuhi peruntukan- peruntukan kaedah-kaedah dan undang-undang. (ii) Satu perintah bahawa Kebenaran Merancang yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan Pertama kepada Defendan Kedua pada 21.10.2016 dan lanjutan Kebenaran Merancang pada 8.2.2019 dibatalkan. [26] Penelitian kepada tuntutan Plaintif kepada Defendan Pertama adalah penting bagi menentukan sama ada ianya bersesuaian untuk satu tindakan di bawah Aturan 53 KKM 2012 atau ia adalah merupakan tindakan di bawah Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 atau di bawah Aturan 15 kaedah 16 KKM 2012. Ia penting untuk menggunapakai prinsip yang telah dinyatakan dalam kes O’Reilly v Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124 yang telah dijadikan rujukan utama dalam kes Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Ors (supra) dan Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors [2006] 2 MLJ 389. [27] Dalam kes O’Reilly v Mackman (supra) Lord Diplock menyatakan seperti berikut: “In the instant cases where the only relief sought is a declaration of nullity of the decisions of a statutory tribunal, the Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, as in any other case in which a similar declaration of nullity in public law is the only relief claimed, I have no hesitation, in agreement with the Court of Appeal, in holding that to allow the actions to proceed would be an abuse of the process of the court. They are blatant attempts to avoid the protections for the respondents for which Ord 53 provides. I would dismiss these appeals.” [28] Penelitian kepada fakta dalam kes O’Reilly v Mackman (supra) menunjukkan bahawa terdapat tindakan terhadap badan awam di bawah semakan kehakiman seperti yang diperuntukan di bawah Rules of Supreme Court O 53. [29] Sementara itu jika diteliti kepada kes YAB Dato' Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir & Ors v YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu (Attorney General Malaysia, intervener) (supra) ia melibatkan hak Plaintif dalam kes tersebut di bawah seksyen 41 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [30] Hal ini tidak berlaku dalam kes ini. Perhubungan Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama tidak melibatkan pengisyitiharan hak Plaintif atau melibatkan keputusan yang melibatkan Plaintif sebaliknya ia adalah melibatkan Defendan Kedua. Sekiranya Plaintif tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan badan awam iaitu Defendan Pertama Mahkamah ini berpendapat cara yang sepatutnya adalah dengan menggunakan semakan kehakiman. Ini adalah disebabkan unsur undang-undang awam adalah lebih terserlah daripada undang-undang persendirian dalam tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama. [31] Adakah tindakan Plaintif memfailkan writ saman dan bukannya semakan kehakiman adalah satu penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Dalam hal ini Mahkamah perlu berhati-hati dan menentukan sama ada pemfailan writ saman ini adalah salah aturan yang tidak sewajarnya dijadikan alasan untuk membatalkan tindakan di bawah Aturan 18 kaedah 19 KKM 2012 atas alasan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Ini adalah disebabkan terdapat Aturan 1A dan Aturan 2 KKM 2012 yang perlu diberikan perhatian oleh Mahkamah. Aturan 1A KKM 2012 menyatakan seperti berikut: 1A Mahkamah atau hakim hendaklah memberi perhatian terhadap keadilan Perhatian hendaklah terhadap keadilan (A. 1A) Dalam mentadbir Kaedah-Kaedah ini, Mahkamah atau seorang Hakim hendaklah memberi perhatian pada kepentingan utama keadilan dan tidak hanya kepada ketidakpatuhan teknikal dengan Kaedah-Kaedah ini. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [32] Aturan 2 KKM 2012 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: 2 Kesan kerana ketidakpatuhan 1. Ketidakpatuhan Kaedah-Kaedah (A. 2 k. 1) (1) Jika, pada memulakan atau bertujuan untuk memulakan apa-apa prosiding atau pada mana-mana peringkat dalam penjalanan atau yang berkaitan dengan apa-apa prosiding, telah berlakunya, oleh sebab apa-apa perkara yang dilakukan atau tidak dilakukan, yang tidak mematuhi kehendak Kaedah- Kaedah ini, ketidakpatuhan itu akan dikira sebagai suatu ketidakteraturan dan tidaklah membatalkan prosiding itu, apa- apa langkah yang diambil dalam prosiding itu, atau apa-apa dokumen, penghakiman atau perintah di dalamnya. (2) Kaedah-Kaedah ini adalah suatu kanun tatacara dan tertakluk kepada objektif utama bagi membolehkan Mahkamah menguruskan kes dengan adil. Pihak-pihak itu dikehendaki untuk membantu Mahkamah bagi mencapai objektif utama ini. (3) Mahkamah atau Hakim boleh, atas alasan bahawa telah berlakunya suatu ketidakpatuhan yang sedemikian sebagaimana yang disebut dalam perenggan (1), dan atas apa-apa terma tentang kos atau selainnya sebagaimana yang difikirkan adil oleh Mahkamah atau Hakim, dengan mengambil kira objektif utama Kaedah-Kaedah ini, menjalankan budi bicaranya di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah ini untuk membenarkan apa-apa pindaan, sekiranya ada, untuk dibuat dan membuat apa-apa perintah, sekiranya ada, dalam menguruskan prosiding itu secara umum sebagaimana yang difikirkan patut oleh Mahkamah atau Hakim untuk membetulkan ketidakteraturan itu. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 2. Permohonan untuk mengetepikan kerana ketidakteraturan (A. 2 k. 2) (1) Suatu permohonan untuk mengetepikan apa-apa prosiding, apa-apa langkah yang diambil dalam mana-mana prosiding atau apa-apa dokumen, penghakiman atau perintah di dalamnya kerana ketidakpatuhan dengan Kaedah-Kaedah ini tidak boleh dibenarkan melainkan jika permohonan itu dibuat dalam suatu masa yang munasabah dan sebelum pihak yang memohon itu telah mengambil apa-apa langkah baru selepas menyedari ketidakteraturan dan ketidakpatuhan itu telah menyebabkan salah laksana keadilan yang substansial atau menyebabkan prejudis yang tidak boleh dibetulkan sama ada melalui pindaan atau suatu perintah yang bersesuaian bagi kos. (2) Suatu permohonan di bawah kaedah ini boleh, selepas notis ketidakteraturan diberikan kepada pihak yang satu lagi, dibuat melalui notis permohonan dan alasan bantahan hendaklah dinyatakan di dalamnya. 3. Bantahan awal untuk ketidakpatuhan kaedah-kaedah tidaklah dibenarkan (A. 2 k. 3) Mahkamah atau Hakim tidak boleh membenarkan apa-apa bantahan awal oleh mana-mana pihak kepada apa-apa kausa atau perkara atau prosiding hanya atas alasan ketidakpatuhan mana-mana peruntukan Kaedah-Kaedah ini melainkan jika Mahkamah atau Hakim berpendapat bahawa ketidakpatuhan itu telah menyebabkan suatu salah laksana keadilan yang substansial atau menyebabkan prejudis yang tidak boleh dibetulkan sama ada melalui pindaan atau suatu perintah yang bersesuaian bagi kos atau kedua-duanya. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [33] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam meneliti ketidakpatuhan kepada Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah dan juga isu-isu teknikal telah menyatakan seperti berikut dalam kes Jagdis Singh Banta Singh v. Outlet Rank (M) Sdn Bhd [2013] 3 CLJ 47: “[14] We were of the considered opinion that in the circumstances of this instant case, the requirement of rr. 5(3) and 18(3) of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 should be liberally construed and that mere technicalities should not stand in the way of consideration of a case on the merits. Striking out a notice of appeal where a party inadvertently failed to date and sign it will produce a hash result. Rule of procedure should not be taken as a game of skill in which one oversight by counsel shall be decisive to the outcome of the case. The purpose of procedure is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” [34] Sementara itu berkenaan pemakaian Aturan 1A KKM 2012, Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada pandangan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal [2009] 4 CLJ 329 yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “[46] The technical non-compliance of any rule may be remedied where there is an accidental omission or oversight by a party. A general provision such as O. 1A RHC is for the court or judge to give heed to justice over technical non- S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 compliance. It must not supersede a mandatory requirement of the Rules. O. 1A RHC cannot be invoked when a party intentionally disregards in complying with the Rules. Otherwise, parties would be encouraged to ignore the Rules. Thus in this case, O. 1A RHC does not apply as the respondents had intentionally disregarded O. 6 r. 7(2A) RHC for their own reasons.” [35] Dalam kes ini adakah keputusan Plaintif untuk mengemukakan tuntutan melalui writ kepada Defendan Pertama dan tidak mengemukakan semakan kehakiman adalah suatu ketidakpatuhan yang boleh Mahkamah ini menggunapakai Aturan 1A dan Aturan 2 KKM 2012. Ini adalah disebabkan di bawah Aturan 53 KKM 2012 telah diperuntukkan tatacara yang perlu dilakukan satu semakan kehakiman. [36] Apa yang jelas bagi satu permohonan untuk semakan kehakiman satu kebenaran perlu diperolehi daripada Mahkamah sebelum semakan kehakiman ini boleh didengar meritnya oleh Mahkamah. Ia adalah berkaitan dengan relif yang terdapat dalam Aturan 53 kaedah 1 dan 2 KKM 2012. [37] Dalam konteks ini adalah wajar sekiranya Mahkamah merujuk kepada penjelasan berkenaan dengan penyalahgunaan proses dalam konteks tindakan yang diambil bagi suatu prosiding. Dalam kes ini prosiding telah dimulakan dengan writ saman dan bukannya dimulakan dengan semakan kehakiman. Panduan yang dinyatakan oleh S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 CLJ 533 adalah seperti berikut: “Abuse of process in the context of a step taken in the proceedings would, in my judgment, include the use of interlocutory relief as an instrument of oppression. The law provides for remedies, both interim and final, to a litigant to set right, or to prevent, some harm or injury that has been done or may be reasonably apprehended. It is plainly an abuse of the court's process where relief at law or in equity is used, not to remedy a genuine grievance, but as an instrument of oppression. There have been instances before our courts where an interlocutory injunction has been found to have been used as an instrument of oppression. We have always intervened in such cases and set the matter right. See, for example, Motor Sports International Ltd (Servants or agents at Federal Territory of Labuan) & Ors v. Delcont (M) Sdn Bhd [1996] 3 CLJ 483; [1996] 2 MLJ 605; Tsoi Ping Kwan V. Loh Lai Ngoh & Anor. [1997] 3 CLJ 552.” [38] Malahan jika dilihat dalam tort penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah, Mahkamah Rayuan telah memberikan keadaan yang boleh dikatakan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah tersebut. Ini dinyatakan dalam kes Malaysia Building Society Bhd v Tan Sri General Ungku Nazaruddin bin Ungku Mohamed [1998] 2 MLJ 425 seperti berikut: S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 “Every person who is aggrieved by some wrong he considers done him is at liberty to invoke the process of the court. Equally may a litigant invoke the process to enforce some claim which he perceives he has against another. When however, the process of the court is invoked, not for the genuine purpose of obtaining the relief claimed, but for a collateral purpose, for example, to oppress the defendant, it becomes an abuse of process. Where the court's process is abused, the proceedings complained of may be stayed, or if it is too late to grant a stay, the party injured may bring an action based on the tort of collateral abuse of process. The position has been neatly summed up by Lord Denning MR in his dissenting judgment in Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd & Ors [1977] 1 WLR 478, where at p 489 he said: In a civilized society, legal process is the machinery for keeping and doing justice. It can be used properly or it can be abused. It is used properly when it is invoked for the vindication of men's rights or the enforcement of just claims. It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to serve extortion or oppression: or to exert pressure so as to achieve an improper end. When it is so abused, it is a tort, a wrong known to the law. The judges can and will intervene to stop it. They will stay the legal process, they can, before any harm is done. If they cannot stop it in time, and harm is done, they will give damages against the wrongdoer. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 Though a dissenting judgment, the principle enunciated by the Master of the Rolls has been accepted as authoritative of what constitutes an abuse of process.” [39] Penelitian kepada kes-kes yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah berkaitan dengan proses Mahkamah terdapat pelbagai keadaan yang boleh dikategorikan sebagai penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Ia bukanlah satu yg tuntas. Ini dapat dilihat dalam kes Indah Desa Saujana Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v. James Foong Cheng Yuen & Anor [2008] 1 CLJ 651 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan seperti berikut: “[81] The court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of its process: Raja Zainal Abidin Raja Hj Tachik & Ors v. British-American Life & General Insurance Bhd. [1993] 3 CLJ 606 SC. [82] Illustrations of an abuse of the process of the court include: (a) An intention to embarass the defendants: Ansa Teknik (M) Sdn. Bhd v. Cygal Sdn. Bhd [1989] 1 LNS 26; or (b) Where the process of the court has not been used in a bona fide manner and has been abused: Hadi Hassan v. Suria Records Sdn. Bhd & Ors [2004] 8 CLJ 225. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [83] The categories of abuse of process of the court are never closed and will certainly proliferate pursuant to the myriad of circumstances available from the factual matrix found in each particular case.” [40] Ini turut ditegaskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di Singapura dalam kes Gabriel Peter & Partners (Suing as a Firm) v Wee Chong Jin & Ors [1998] 1 SLR 374 seperti berikut: “[22] The term, ‘abuse of the process of the Court’, in O 18 r 19(1)(d), has been given a wide interpretation by the courts. It includes considerations of public policy and the interests of justice. This term signifies that the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent the improper use of its machinery. It will prevent the judicial process from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation. The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed and will depend on all the relevant circumstances of the case. A type of conduct which has been judicially acknowledged as an abuse of process is the bringing of an action for a collateral purpose, as was raised by the respondents. In Lonrho v Fayed (No 5) [1993] 1 WLR 1489, Stuart-Smith LJ stated that, if an action was not brought bona fide for the purpose of obtaining relief but for some other S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 ulterior or collateral purpose, it might be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court.” [41] Penelitian kepada kes-kes di atas menunjukkan bahawa apabila suatu tindakan dilakukan oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan dengan menggunakan proses Mahkamah yang tidak sepatutnya digunakan dengan merujuk kepada remedi yang dipohon maka ia boleh digolongkan sebagai penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Dalam kes ini Plaintif sewajarnya menggunakan semakan kehakiman di bawah Aturan 53 KKM 2012 dan bukan menggunakan writ saman bagi mengambil tindakan kepada Defendan Pertama. Penggunakan writ saman tersebut bukanlah suatu salah aturan yang boleh diperbetulkan di bawah Aturan 2 KKM 2012 atau boleh dikesampingkan oleh Mahkamah dengan menggunakan Aturan 1A KKM 2012. Fakta bahawa Defendan Pertama adalah badan awam sewajarnya membolehkan Plaintif mengambil tindakan yang sewajarnya di bawah Aturan 53 KKM 2012 terhadap Defendan Pertama. Apa yang jelas daripada affidavit- affidavit yang difailkan oleh pihak-pihak ialah Plaintif menamakan Defendan Pertama sebagai pihak dalam kes ini bagi mengaitkan tuntutan Plaintif kepada Defendan Kedua. Ini adalah disebabkan ketiadaan Defendan Pertama dinamakan sebagai pihak bekemungkinan akan menjejaskan tindakan Plaintif kepada Defendan Kedua. Pada hemat Mahkamah ini adalah suatu tindakan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah yang mewajarkan tindakan ini dibatalkan di bawah Aturan 18 kaedah 19 (1) (d) KKM 2012. S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 [42] Akhirnya permohonan Defendan Pertama di KM12 adalah dibenarkan dengan kos. Bertarikh: 14hb. Disember 2023 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Plaintif Manogaran Marimuthu Tetuan Manogar & Co No. 2-5-2, Tingkat 5, Jalan Semarak Api 2 (Jalan 3/50) Diamond Square, Off Jalan Gombak 53000 Kuala Lumpur Bagi Pihak Defendan Pertama Anatharatchagan @ Anandan P. Thatchanamoorthy dan Nur Fatin Farzana binti Mohd Redzuan Tetuan Nazrin Nasir T. Anand & Co. Tingkat 2s, Kompleks Perhentian Bas 44000 Kuala Kubu Bharu Selangor Darul Ehsan S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Bagi Pihak Defendan Kedua Gary Abraham a/l Xavier Tetuan Kean Chye & Sivalingam No. 10A – 10C, Jalan Panglima 30000 Ipoh Perak Darul Ridzuan S/N XBrBTuE00EqvKEabBAnh2Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCvC-165-11/2022

PLAINTIF INTERGATEWAY FREIGHT SDN BHD DEFENDAN SAM KAR CHYI

Claim by company (plaintiff) against a former employee (defendant) for debt owed by a customer of company – Whether defendant was negligent in generating invoices to the customer – Whether defendant caused the loss of the debt owed by the customer to plaintiff – Whether damages too remote – Whether plaintiff has exhausted its legal remedy against the customer.

14/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=85a86dc4-9368-46ee-bd24-31d44b2b14d6&Inline=true

14/12/2023 15:35:39 PA-22NCvC-165-11/2022 Kand. 265 S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xG2ohWiT7ka9JDHUSysU1g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal u—22ncvc—155-11/2022 Kand. 255 14/12/2022 13:25:39 in ine High com oi Maiaya In Fenang in me siaie oi Fenang, Malaysia 35 wn22 Intergaieway Freight Sdn she Plalnlifl And sam Karcnyn . Delendarvl Gmunoe ofJui1gmenl in reduction 1 This IS a claim by an employer ine PlaIn|if1("F') against its former employee me Deiendanl (“ow ier a sum oi RMI,357,429. The said sum VS owed by a customer ol P, one sanmme-sci Systems (Malaysia) son Bhd (“Slllrllillfj After a full ma|‘ \ dismissed P's ciaim Here are the grmmds oi my iudgmenl Bacggwund lag; 2 n was an employee oi F iron. 3 4 zen, working as an “Officer - Aaoounie ax Cuslomer semoe- He was In cnarge oi P's ousiomers. amongsiomers, Sarimma's eeeouni. sannnna IS a muMi»na|ionaI company that has been engaging P‘: servmes Since year 2am to dale P considered sannuna as one oi us mam cusmmers 3. n was Iranslerred in me payrou oi Hana Mahamega Sdn and on 27.9 2022. He ienaerer: ms resignation a iew days iaier on 2.10.2022 with Immedlale eflect Boin P and Hana Mahsmega son Bhd are owned by i=w—1 (Executive Directnrof P) Pw—1 I5 me m4auridem!F, |ogelherwim ins wire 4. Tnree days aiier D's resignanon, P‘s sohcliors Issued a lener oi oemano oaieo 5102022 against n In mai ieuer, P ckaimed inai D‘s nsghgerioe WI generaling Irwmoss io sennnna heo eeuoea F’ io suller ‘an eslimalad forecast iose oi revenue oi RM1 milhon tentatively F’ iunner siaied inai ii ‘shaH (ry lu veouver and iii: an necasary am: In wmpliance io ine sennoe Le»/5! Agreement‘ m xszunwirnuuiuuusyxuiv «we. a.n.i luvihnrwm be met! a may he nflmnuflly MVMI dnuamnl VI muria v-ms! 5 Tna alorasaid Iellerof demand was not aehverett to D at that pawl 01 Mme D stgtttea tne letter lor tne cyst |Ime when tt was turntsned by P‘: opunset tn D‘! oounset after the commencement at the tnstant suit 6 Less than two months later‘ P insmuted the instant sutt agamst D on 29112022‘ ctayntng a sum at RM1,357,429 Dunng the tnal, tt was dtsctcsed by P's subpoenaed wttnsss. PW-A lvum Sanmma, tnat P had accepted a sum or RM74(-L945.6E oflered by sanntina as tun and anal settlement at the actuat sum awed. The F-Iatntttrs case 7 P ctatms that V! has stmered a loss at RM|.357,429 due In Us negligence to submit tne Invotces mu) Sanmma‘s pans! known as ens Ths was In have been done wtt 180 days Imm tne relevant delivery dates, ID enabte Ssnmtna to make payment P aHeges that D had (filled to demand payment lrum Sanmtna and to ensure tnat payment IS made P turtnar alleges that n caused the toss to P on purpose Tne Dalsndanfs case :3 Us case ts lhls (:1 P has clatmed payn-snt tnun Im wrung puny The sum ov RM1t351,02v I! owed ny Samntnata p :2 shtmld nm ctannett me said sum «mm Sunmma ‘Much ts stun wtthln Ilmb In ctatm. tn) :3 V5 Hm nnvy up no pantmtuat lliingamlm tntwsan P and sanntna u up ml the person mp antuyud tna semoea pmytaaa py P tp sannnn. peflatnmg to In mt sum MRMI 357.429, (c) n cartnu| be hem llspcnsvlfle to aniuve tnat paymenl ts made by Sanmtna mat a not a tsnn tn D's|m1eI at antptpyntsnt tt VS unreasonama tnat an emplnyee nas In guavlntet payment betng matte Dy (ha smplvysrs custpntan ta) D13 nltlher awnve nannnmntat that liver: Isa ttntnatm pemd cl tan days In Clitm pnymem lmm Sanmtnat am te} 5- has Iatled ta hku reasonable steps to rntnpats th pulvuflod lass pt RM‘tJs1m nalton Issue for an xGZahWtY7buWDH\JSysAJ1u 2 «ma s.n.t nuvthnrwm be u... a may t... nflmruflly -mm: dnuumnl y. mutta p-mat 34. P could have sent more s|afl |o hexp om m generanng me mvolues on Sanmma‘s OTIS Dorm. PW-2 (Cuslomer semoe Manager pi Pb «esurved that u would be auue easy for anomar sxaw to learn me job. ‘o I: m mam: Ia Veanw A No a New n I may ask. Muss new, mm mucmlme you lake up Iaam axmum iYI1um7 crsx synam A Abun half day 0 ma new, new I waulfl we up veierm on An aavypms. have ywu evev suagesled In your mg‘ Mr cmanvg Ia asswan we workers ov more empbyees to new om Sam? A Yes - 35. However. not only an P van lo pu|addII\0na}sl2If1 on me job, P lulled up rswaee a depsmng snan who was working on Sanmxnds ens penal D lsslmed as lollows m re«exammanon. -0 Much ohhged My Lord lhankywu I'm ready wnm my n.>exam.naupa Enclk sam, says aaa behevspa soelan unmk m\n|a Enclk Sam bua| venmasan Soalan panama sayay (am psauamcara P\aml\l ada cadannkan kapada Encwk Sam bahawa dalam mus: lampoh tahun zms uhmgga 2022, hunyahh Enclk sam yang mm unluk macam mxni pakaw cvsx ppm dan pwivnn Enuk sam adahh (Id-k satum Euler: rnlnng Enuk Snm ;e|.|sk.an swans um yam lahu aunaw A Tahun zme, masa an 0 Speak «me me, sneak up me me sm Tahun 2D18.masaAlu Mawls up can Ar-we Mm akan lzhu danu mam: crs: aamngga Mapg-. Valak jawmany hanyl aaya aangan Angle um sap (nhu ' 35. mm, PW-1 (Execuhve D|rec|oro!P)at1mmed lhal n \s very common In have huge outstanding sum owmg by as customers. P would manage me si|uaImn by engagmg wv|h me cusmmev In me present case hawever, F appears up be taking a son approach m dealmg mm |hIs parliculav cusmmery sanmma. And Instead go ham on us former employee. D. 37 PW-1 tarsufled as (allows m rsexanunauon. 1: Mr Chnong rm gmngm ask yau severll aueamaa bsckwhereby were ynu have rm-Igreed woman the snauamema or auesunns mm were asked lay my learned Mend oxay. Ihe msl auesuon .5. you were menen up hurvme amp, pumxe 5195, 9899 am), and yen wens man rmsrmd la page m Now, \e| me say me stalemem um, am mem wm ask you «a axwalnta ma Own Whal you we at page we py you look back mining mm 299 man |un:<:lIp| xmwaen yau Ind ma Delewdanl. ynu were asked me. .a Mnggne. you answered Maggie us me exemlwe handlmg SanmIms‘s account Well m am xszunwwvwawunusyxmv “ «ma. a.a.y...y..yym..p....amy...mm-y.,~.m.a.a.y.m..auya W 2019, and yuu were rererrea In several lines or corwsrsalmn uamerneny ‘Mvuuby Sam ws gmng re lag erong wnn meagre, em -nen rarer n was asked er yuu nun ngree men er men nrne senrrnne owed ynu eune suhslamnal mnney, mmwzs me quaslmn and ynu unegreee Can you axplam why yuu mseureea wnn ma|sV.a\amen|1n\heCnun7 A our rneunry we luvs 01:: very mmmamy we du commumula hm n aeesnu rueuy walled mer mere rs nerrnng re do wan r msun one scenanu. rrurn me In nnre we have delay m payment: we me erneunc or hundred lhousann we have rrorn urn. In Mme‘ so we vary aomman rur us to ga| spnrepuayra 9v (5 and ln: ln mscuss nvmh me chem in em mern in pay an unre So‘ In vary wmmnn espeeieuy rne Ipgrsnes mdunry‘ 35 Fuunn, P is slalulomy reqwed to prepare and submit annua\ euanen accounts In rne Cumpames Commission or Mewayera Vn rne course ol preparing me financial sialemenls, P would have areeeverea |hs low uaymem received fmm senrnine. 39 Under cross exarnrnaoon, PW—1 Ieshfied aslounws. ~o Nnghl And yeur company mu pupil: me euerrea srecernen: every year, \sn‘( \l’7 we have veurucmunre audited every year vee, we nnue And you would have also murmured are revenue and (he payrnem, rne oumandxng paymenflnryuurcuslamers amass lhe board, eurreca prnuw Yes sepeeeuy ynur majnr eusmrners, you nave 3, pm mw yau meminnedu one an men. rs sennnne Yes You wank! have pay dun mnnen to me nneumpuey Yes‘ >9» >0 o>o> 40 In the civcumslanoes, P nea every opponunny re rake rememel ecnen and lo pursue ms oulslandmg rnvmees Irorn Sanmlna However, P sat on us ngnrs and dwd nm pursue me oulslandmg mvowoes dmgenuy {mm senrnrna F cannor now Mame D hr us purported loss (h Tne Deiervaanx us no; any In one cantraclual ansngemenl belween the F\amW and sen na 41 Anomer reeeon why u canno| be held Iable var P‘s purponed loss cl RM1,357‘429 re because D was no\ privy In the cnn|raI:1 between P and Sanmma Thus, the alleged rec days urne period for invorcrng agreed upon belween P and Sanmma cannol be wnvoked agamsl D srn xszenwrwuwunusymtg 12 “Nana s.nn nmhnrwm .. med e may r... enmnuuly mm: dnuamnl VI mum WM 42. In Glnmac Amancs 5:11: am V Nardm an M1 Zam [2023] 3 Mu 393. me Cuurl of Appeal said -1531 7h: lbunco or-pr-viryutsannasmmmn mm um plimtmznd me dcfbnd-nlundu ms Glumln ngmnmn and»: tho arrglnulng summons . non~tlnrnr Not only me pmnun nu no ms. ofacllon aualnrt MI umnuun mu nl.1o nu no neoursl aualnsl me defendlnl Imdnr ms Glomac aareemenx - 43 Bemg e snenger to me con(rac| between P and Sanmina, D cannot pnssmxy be new name to any conlraclual term In me said nomrac| on |up cl that, I acoepl that D was no| Inlormed ov me «so days term In me ennnacn There Is nu evidenoe proffered by F, save (or me auegen verbs! nuuficaucn by PWV1 44 Under cross exammalion, D Ieslmed as louows “<2 Encwk sam, Kamu sedar lak wade Iamm 2m, mule clan Iamm zm Enuk Sam ssdav (ak akan «snna Pambayarin mvuls Sanmml mm 130 mm? snnk Sam sednrlakurmi W7 mu lid: menguknx kelernngan Enmk Sam maxan Kali penama Enclk Sam aengar bemenaan flengan um nan W7 Masa (enma mlanvnalxm nan peuuann save Maksudnya mesa hndakan nuiman mldwawlkanlarfi Va >0» 0» 45 If al an me «so nays (arm ws snncuy enfmced m we eomznemax dealmg bemeen P and sannnna. P coma nave issued a wmpany memo, ernau or reminder wn wrinng to D and me other accuums peysnnnex P's accoums personne\ some have been specifically tasked In ensuve slncl comphanoe wnh me 130 days |erm Bul ms was not done, as admmed by Pw—1 In moss exammalmn. -a mm ‘ask an on has dc ym. agree wnn me man mrouwhuul me nenennnm working wI|h you smee 2on7 an me way unl\I2l122 nevove ns ressgnea non Hana Manamega you have nevev vemmded ms oeosnaam In wnnna on me can days term that you mermorvad nun nw nnpeaen by Sanmma You nave nevev senn armhlrvg .n wrmng (a me nevannanu. annual’ Conan Sn‘ nm In say «.2 .ennnn lhil ne ms not done er wnax am you have a\so neueHeH hm m wrmng max aunerwnanstwn eman. Ielxev. memo mat musl Dnmply sInr.I\yw1IhIfll) days uenn you nevev, \srv'| nv Nalmng m wmmg A Innh/12H vemaionh/' 0) sm xG1unww‘nuNuHuSyw1v ‘“ «me s.nn lunhnrwm a. met! a may he annnnn mm: dnuamnl VI .nnna em 45. Psmnsnfly. D had nerrrrer enjoyed nur trenemted from me servrces provrded by Flo Sanmma As the recrprerrr entre sard sennees, Sanmrna arerre hears the obrrgauon to pay P (or me servir-,es rendered. Thus. tne D|:r|Iga|ron rd pay me oulslandlng sum M5 wrrtr Sanmina‘ not D we purporled rose at RM1r3§7,42§ Is trre arrears or payment awed by sannrine tr has nalhrng rd dd wrtrr D ( The PI rrIn1[]§§ 9 gghgustad ns IE3! remedy agarnsrsenrrrrne 47 P donrplerns that D not demand payment trern Ssnmrna wrlhrrr rao days trdrn the rerevarrr derrvery dares, resurtrng In e loss at RM1r3§‘/‘A29. However, I|sppearslha\ P rrrrgmsrrrr have reeerrree agarnsl sannrrrra rn respect or rrre omsranding sum I agree wrlh D that F nae no| exhausted i|s legal remedy egernsr Ssrrmrrra 48 P and Sanmrna had entered Irrlo a Master contracr luv Lngrslrc Servrces on 1 2 2015 and 1.32021 respectively. It provrdes as follows r2 zrar Service Pmvlosr MU us: rensnrrahle mrrrnrererar errors to praum compists and count! Irrvovnes rd smwr rm Servroes wrtnrrr "my (30) day: D1 rne dsrlvuy rmtre enrrre shtpmenl ar desrrrratron mwlnn prmemad mar lhan one hundred ergh|y(1W)flays hum rne dale at ihrpmunt wrrr rro| be accepled or paid: nor wrrr semce Provlder aooepl crarms for averpnymerrls one hundred and ergnty days tram Drum rne date ul shipment‘ A9 PW-4, rtre srrpgry crrarn Prqea Manager trorrr senrrrma. rrrenrrdned |haI\herr180 days crarrse in me contrar-,x Is governed by cerrvorniarr state Law. -u verr arw rerd rne com um yflu have seek regal ad»/rue en rnre mallur an 150 days rerrn when ynu were asked vr you were ewere mare murd be 3 hmtlmlmr era years and ydu caurd 61I\lc\aIm,nghl’V A Yes o wrret have you bean eevreedv A we ned been advlud hy the Iiwfiml Ihal searne tnar the oomvad our wu true rn place etpreeery ereree rner rne enroreernenr D! ms wmmcl wrrr De based an Carflnmlnn srate Law so, we raw firm rner advrsed Us sure advised us trrer me Iyprcar eeemeen er rne Mlrayuirr cedn System rs rrrar rt wrlr rru| seek Ioenfovce cm regererren erenmnerrdnedrmn wrrrch rrre um competent in srriovcl Sc Vrke rn lhns case the odrr|rac1 re med an Calflumnn Sm: Law rrr nmlltev words, rnrr rawyerwld us rnerrne law rrrrn mud us met r| re urrlrkely rnar rnar wnttacl wrrr ac1uaHy be brrrdmg Iegardress at whatever tne Marzyslarr begar syitnm sly: » su. rrr sunrrrrssrorrsr D erred tne cede 0| Crvrl Pmdedure or calrrornia and argued trret ttre rrrnrtertron period Is lour years em xszenwrwruwuwsysaurg ‘I “Nair e.n.r luvrhnrwm be mad e may r... nflnrnnrrly mrnrn dnuavrml VI .rruNa vmur Secilan :37 Wllh\l1'a|lYy¢3Vs (la) An anrm upon any mnlrad, eoluarlen or lranrllly rounded upun an lnslrurnenl ln wnllnd. exoevl as Dmv-den In secllon 3362. Wovldedr lnal lne llme wllhm wnlcn any amlun lor a nll:M?Y ludernenl lor the balance due upon an ool-gallon luv me nay-nenl cl wrncn a deed ol (run or rnclwage wrln pvwev cl eale uwn real pvopsrly ur any lnlenul lnerern wu glven an eeednry, ldllowrne lne exercise or lne pawer ul eele ln such deed ohms! ar mangage may be bmugm shnll um exlead beyond mree manlhs after me Mme or sale under such deed nl (ms! or nwngaoe ~ 51 D eonlends lrral P's clslm agalnsl sanrnlna IS nol llrne barred, even ln llle oomsxl ol celllorrllen slale Law slnoe (our years have not elapsed at me lllne wnen P lnalnuled me lnslam sull on 29.11.2022. Bul I am reluclanl to accept D's contenliun when nu evidence, ln pamcular larelgn expen legal opinion. nos been adduoed on one polnl 52. Conversely no-wever. ll nas nor been proyen by P lrlel lls c ldr me eulalandlng sum agalnel Sarlmlrla ls llnre barred. olner lnan me bare aseenron ol ewe, P dld ndl prerler any eyldenee lo ealalallen lnal ll IS precluded ncrn clalnnng me oulelandrng sum lrdrn Sanmlna by vlrtus 0! me 180 days dause 53. under Malayslan law, me llrnlralion period to alarm a debt arlslng «mm a oenlrecl ls 6 years. (see secllon 6(l){a) ol lne Llmllallon Acl 1953) A eonlreclual prdylslon wnlen seeks lo Impose e llnnlallon perlad ol 150 days ls argueoly yold oy lllrlue 01 seellon 29 ol lne Corllracls Ael 1950. As >1 would nave lne ellecl at llmlllng lne lllne wllnln wllleh a parly may enlorce I|S rlgnls lo pursue a dem (See lne coun emppeal case e1 MEI Irlsurarls sdn EM v Lerrlbaga Perlyaluan 5 Pemulihan Tanah Persekuluarl (FELCRA) [2005] 2 MLJ 393). 54. Pmllng asrde lhe gdyernrng law, me laels suggeel lnal sanlnlna nan nol slrlcfly enldrced lne 150 days eleuee ll la nolewdnny lnal sanrnlna nad ncl releaed P's clalln hack ln November 2022 wnen ||'le rnslanl sull was filed lnslead, sanlnlna had requesled P10 send ln lne lnyoloes and supponlng docunrenls lor yalld ‘ purpose Thls neppened wnen P nolllled snnrnrna dune unpard lnvorces yle en enrarl daled 17 10.2022 55 II ls evldenl mal Sanmlna was eooperallye. Tnere la nu docunrenlary eyldenoe shuwlng sannllna Iaklng lne slance lnallne servlces whlch were nul ollled wllhm 180 days were rejecled or no longer clalrneole by P on me conlrary. Sanmirla requesled P lo suornll lne lnydlces lcr semces lhal were rendered more men 130 days ago. rn xszenwlwluwuuusywlv ‘5 «er... e.n.l luvlhnrwm be u... e my me annnnn mm: dnuavlml VI .nann Wm! 55 ms was mnlrrmed by Fw—1 (Exec-Auve Dvector of P) under cross examinaliun -0 And M rm meyara vary pppp-rams, they sml askyouu) send u. hard cupy mvmces lov rnarn to vnvwy Ian vl’7 A Yes a rney navnr stun yuu amne door mm m. hogmnmg. mrvecl or nprv may as vury mavenanve A on, yea “ 57 As well as by pw—2 (cusuunar sannae Manager of P) in cross exammanon. -o wm I meanns men -n uavernuarznzz. suununa asked you up send rn EH meirwo\ces.oorrec1’ Yhal .3 mm paid A Yes 0 And sanrruna has not Iepemed 1|‘ may um vaquusl yau Ia send In ma mvnwex, puuem A vea 0 And as lav as you knaw ma new, pevore um mselmg am. there Is no single: wmtsn arm. I mu say mere rs no single emml «rum Senmlna say man nucause yuu have me Plamlm has mil clmm Var (he mu wunu. «ea dayn. so sanrruna wm not pay Thara u m sun‘)! ernau Isn‘l :1 «mm SIHMIM7 A ves no" 58. ll ts nalewonhy that mere were pravrous uccasiuns where sanrmna aooaplsd P's mv s \ha| were more than 130 days pm. This was confirmed by PW-I Imdev cvoss examvnallon. ‘Q Mngm Look at page :0, u. we nmaue pan‘ ms ernau rs sum by suzana up Sam dale 09 as zoza Jus| refler up a law Imus with ma Vnvnloe dale. 25 07 201¥,you :aw:|7 Allhe mum pan, mare ran nramm, naru-.» The nun ohnvmcasy rm Iookmg a|Ihe1\Is\ anu second hue man, you saw ‘I’? A vea o 25 07 2019, man we swarm one Vs 3101 2019 mu nu ma rnvmcas, nihfi corramv A corrau cu can you new max 31015 dale agam‘ um beyond 130 aayp, mu! m A vea- 59 Fmm me evrdenoer Sanmma has not In wrmng vemmad P's claim. even urui the tnal oi the ms'anl sun There re no err-an or Keller from sanrrnna much bars P's claun for mvuloas that are aVder lhan 150 days On me mncrary, SarImIni‘s Vetlel dated 12.4.2023 appears in be dlolnmatic and um coarcwe an nature u reads srn xGZuhW\Y7iuNDH|JSysI.Hg '5 “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm be u..a a my r... unun.u-y mum: dnuamnl VI mum p-mar “Disputed mums» Desi Mrcnoono, Further tn uur wmpamu‘ ream wiresvwldericiu regarding the disvuled invoices associated wnn freight semoes pmvnded helween Oaohev 20t9 ano sepiemoer 2022. we are wmino In pay MYR 749,945 as tin increase oi MVR 125,257 731171 exmanne for :5 MI release otzii pzymenuoianeo claims - 50, P had accepted Sanminds offer |0 pay a sum 07 RM749,945 38 H seems tn me that P's acceptance oi a lower sum IS motivated by a desire to not oiieno a mator customer sno risk losing their business. ms was admitted as much by PW—1 A I think I have anlwamd i|, I have no nplinn. ill in me mxsie¢ services aoieemeni smeo cienrty ii‘: ourtaiiule ta on them wnnm me siiooisxeo no may: and may have ail me ngius no: to pay us as one Two aui valid chem, do we want to oneno our client and kvst uli me busmessei tor ins Mare’? 1 wili ratheviust luliuw this as iona as ITS ieasnnabla than we have this close - 61 W P chooses to aooept a Inwer sum (mm Sanmina, that is its Drerogative, But F‘ Cannot View turn around and seek to make D Viabie [or the balance rernaining sum. Obviously, Dis an easy target As compared to the corporate might oi an important customer, e2. Pseems to have no qualms ill pursuing the outstanding amount owed by San na trom its turmer employee, D. But i wouia not oonoone sucn oppressive cunduct Move so, wnen P has not been consistent m its stance, as seen below 63. Through its iawyers. F had Issued a letter otdemarid dated 5,10 2022 against D. in the letter 0' demand, F explicitiy stated that It needed In address the matter with Sanmma in accordance with the Service Lavsi Ageenent ‘Nmicn or intvit ta iristitntt iugal Iiilidn for gross nsgngsnoo ano tnilure Ia omonn duly onoaniiy 3 As suon nur onem has instructed us In irilaml me: .n we event me amount sum that you have tailed, neonoeniiy oi onnueo -n veflmmirifl youvouwomnsnny Vmich were oi within your versoriat knowiedqe, iemams oumsnomn ano uwmfl ulwriich our ciierit rhali lrytu iaoovei ano oo aii nacnlarya-:15 In compliance to the Service Law Agieamam, in «nu mnt, wrc rit snsii nono yau name tnrnli amount owing ano uutxtanding, oosu and exnarisul ansmo out oi and >71 relahari thereta “ sm .ezmwnn.a.onus,nu«o " «an. a.n.i...n.Wns.u...omy...mnn.ny.,nn.o.a.n.n.o..nuna vlmxi 64 Never\he\essy mere we no eyrdenue to Show that P had attempted to recover the culslandmg sum lmm sanrnina m or around October and Navernber 2022 Insuaaau F mea me ins\an| sum ‘us! aver a month anar sending the avarernanunnaa vane: or demand And n womd aeenu wmlsl negnnalnons were ungulng beiween F and Sanmlna E5 Premised on \he above. I oonsmer F‘s aclmn m Ming the instant sun agamsl u as premalure and oppresswe. To my mind, P has not exhausled the necessary slaps to cwanrn llom Sanmma. Vnslead, P commenced this legal acnon agamsl D Io claim In! me payment owed by Sanmma d Doublgrgpvem nolgerm ed as F Inmaled this Vegal acnnn against n clalmmg a sum cfRM\,351.429y being Ihe purpnned wuss suaarau by P The claim sum carresponds to me outstanding amount owed by Sanmma Durlng lheIHa1 I surfaced Ihak Sanmma had sveady paid some ponmn of the oulslandlng sum to F. And womd he pmgrssswely paying lurlher amaums to P 57 F'W—A (Supp\y cnam Pro;ec1 Manager or Sanmlna) leslmed unuer cross exammahun mat sanrnma has earnrniued |o making a payment ol around RM75o,nuo -0 Ir yau wank n| me smounl approved hcre. wl you wera In add up RM357.73367 mus RM33Ey28234y we win came up to ma ngure av RMs§7.0160Ion7y am am rmw you an rnenuon ma appruvsd amount vs amuna RM74s,uon, :0 where .5 Ihe balance ova-auna saw Already pawn bocauxe me man Rwwyuou naymenl lhey are rnana pmgrasmexy Q: 1 as A 50 dlmnu nna ma whsn this emu was seru. n omy lists dawn (hose wwmoes which was ml yel part‘! so wn omar words cm: Vs ‘nu aulslandmq that make up lhe 150k 0 5:) ma bahnni an ever have been paid bu P\am|\l1 axraaayr A vs! a B-11 Plannml saw that they never reoewe any paymenl, are you aware or Ihaw A x was mlurmaa um may naye mu raeewaa pay-mam, yes. and ms Is 0 So wmch Vs mum wnamar have been pan mum saw or how’ A Payment definrlew have new mad: hm an Ihis palm m mm x wuldru answer me quemun ol haw much have aaen paw because niymerfl rs made progresswew 0 So aannnary (her: a some paymsn|maoem1ho Flawmfl aveedy/'7 A Defimwy yes 0 Okay But you are no| sure abaulme aemna aa how much am al\ man A Allms new rn Mme, no‘ ldnn‘\ know the exact number am xszanwrwtuwnuusymtg “ «mu. am.‘ ...yu.rym a. met! a my u. nflmruflly mm: dnunmnl y. mum v-ma! 63 Based on me documentary evidence‘ Sanmmél had ottered to pay RM769.945 as tn excrtange tor a tun release at an 'aayment-retated ctatms' Sarvllma ctd not spactty In tts afler letter dated 124.2023 oonoernmg tne reason my me oatance amount ts not pad. The |enn ‘dispuled tnvotoes“ assuctated WM! height semces pmvided bemsen October 2019 and septemoerzozz, as stated in sanm a's tetter, ooutd bear yartous meamng And not due to me 130 days hme bar, as attegec by F. as In hghl ot mas develupmemy RM5D7.A83 31 In I\s submisstuns In ropty however, P ctatmed a sum ot RMoo7.739,so. By my catcutatton, the batance sum ts RM6fl7y483 32 Atter deducltng tne setttement sum ot RM749.945 as trom lhe ctmm sum ot RMI.357,429. 70 Doucte recovery ts nol permtttad tn taw tsee tne court or Appeat case u1 Mak Sfew wer y Yeah Eng Kong a other appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 253) P quite senstbty tactored in the setttement sum paid by Sanmtna Aflhough there seems to be some contuston over the correct amount to be deducted. But regardtess wttettter tt be tne tun ctatm sum or a reduced sum‘ my conctuaton rsmatns that D ts not ttaate tor the balance amount unpatd by Ssrvmna 71 P rmgh| be upset about D's sudden resignatton Perhaps D could be tautted tor not gwmg sumcient nottce ot ms resignalton P may well he entttted to ctatm tor payment WV lieu ot noltoe agamsl D But Io attempt to make D ttaote tor Ihe culslandmg sum owed by Sanmtna smacks or ytndtcttveness Cuncmstun 12 Fov the reasons above, 1 (Ind that P has not pruven W5 case on a batance ol pmbabtlmes. I ttterevore dtsmtssed P's claim 73. t ordered P to pay costs at RM35.aou to D This lakes trtto account a slnkmg out apottcatton med by D was Enclusure 7, which was dtamtssed wI|h costs tn me cause Dated 20 Nnvember 2023 rn xszertwtwtuwwusywtv '9 «nu. s.n.t...n.ryn..u....umyu.unnnuu.mn.uua.n.ny..nuua v-mat 4? Quay Chew Soon Juage Hxgh Court of Mama, Penang own Dlvlswcn NCVC 1 Caungyg Jams: am Ts: wen, kavulyn Yip Vu Mmg and Kim) Poh Chye (Mnssrs Aamm .4. Ca) same mama Nan Um W91 Luvv (Must: Shannen Lee a co; Iurma my-us.“ sm xszanwwvuwnnusystutg 2“ «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 9. The wssuss m be Tned’ are-Inal case managemenl documem that was filed by ma pamaa listed a mynsd av rasuss. I Ihmk me crux oi the case can be dushlled |o one pnncrpan Issue. Name\y. wnsmer the Delendam has caused me loss al RM1,a57,429.uo owed by sannuna lo the Warnlwf‘ (r e wem no a or me ‘Issues to be Tried‘ dnoumeni). And related |o that, ‘whether me Delendam can be new name for ma sum ov money owned by Sanrnma to me Plarnm (Le nem no 9 ollhe ‘wssues to be Tned‘ aocumsnu 10 My answer Is nu‘ tor lhe loHowmg reasons: 1:) n rs mo rarnms for F be dawn (ml :2 ma named P‘: vurvnnsd Ian .n ma rum RM1‘357.4Z9r (I17 D was rrm vvwy no me aarmacx belween P and Sznmmz‘ and me anagaa 150 days Mme venod lur mvmawr (c) P has not axhauslad na Vega‘ vemody iga It Sxnmma. and (:1) name recovery rs nm pemmlcd 11 Here Is my explanahon. a Rgmuleness or damages I2. I agree ‘MI?! D that it \s we lemme for P lo dawn that D had caused F‘s purporled loss m the sum RMI,357,A29 P bears are buvden Dfpmving causation and quanlum ol loss \n my opinion, P has not proven that D caused the purported loss 0| RML35‘/.429 13 In 0550 Bank (M) and V Fm/mk Markatmg Sdn and am anornar appeal [2023] 2 MLJ 351, me Cmm ml Appea\ naxa 7:57] We carmotbulagms wrlrv Im IPPCIIJIIL nmrg vvihulad M: ma/uy or III: awaance An MI: appear The Hrgn Cam! «en rnlu ermr when r! accepted me nmourvl afloss ufiayauly sunaraa by ma respondent whrch ma teamed 4:: sara had Dam avervexfwhen no such evrdenee was pmmsu lo msxanzrars sum New And no! my mat, Ion even where were mm mm (wwch Mr find urvmmn; sum mass: or uamag-s wen clnny non rumor: tn nm Bun caused by me appsnarn [1531 w. mun amphaslu mar s um 17! ms Conlrucls Act 1950, as as: ml amen marry pmvrdss ma: smr zampnnnilon Is not to as given for any rarnrm or mdirlrl loss or dlmlyt sufllnd on amount aims breach V 3 sm xszanwrwsuwuuusywtv “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. U... a may r... mn.u-r -mm: dnuamnl VI murm war 14 I acknowmige that D. as an employee, awes a oon\rar.1uaI my m P as his emplnyer But I see no causatian bexwesn me wnlvacmal duty owed and the purported loss o1 RM1 357429 sunsred by P 15. sennune nas been a mayor cuskzmer at P since year 2018.Sanmma nes conslslently mnninucea sngnfllcam revenue to P P had assngned D us sonery lake charge 0! Sanmma‘s pomoho penammg «a me accounts 16 P V3 aware |haI D‘s h\ghBs| qualmcaucn us only SPM (Sull Pelajaran Mexayee), PW-Z (Customer Service Manager ov P) acknowledged mat, gwerl D's modssl Bducémorlal background‘ P should not expect Hells! penonnenee from n. nespue this knuwledge, P failed to supemse D‘s work 17 The volluwmg transpwed dunng me cmss exennnauan of F"W»2 -u Nnghl‘ Ihank yuu And Muss Lwewy an yuu nware ac uerenuaure quahfinzamnv A vee 0 Agree wne us sw |svu|’7 sm leaver A ves, agree u 50, nuguny Muss new. Ioglcauy Delendam‘: peflnrma/Ice hat in D: murmured desery lhmnghom his \enu.e mun me mmpany, do you iglae wwlh me7 Because you canmzl expecnhe Deaenazm to achvrve very nugn level peflumvanca A Yes.ma1‘s why wu gwe chance, x agree a So, ha ha: m as out unflera wry um mommrand gumence a\l(hIiw/fink. wIm:1 or new A Yes Q And m mu avsm a mu us any Imponanl penvoua u ta be ghven |o «ne Delendam, n u reasonable In have samaona In ovnrsee n.s work as wen amen? A Va: A: Now, you menhmed me: Im D-i5endnn| rs asked to nenae Snmmna‘s mevunl. yuu knuw wnu u Snnmmm A Yes a. II Sanmmi would you agree wnn me m Hy Snmmna is one ul your mum cuswmem A wyou are nenuumng dunng mm .s yes 0 Whul aboul zuzu unmmev A Thal nme us hecause we have me: my cuemmen, m n wm become no mngu u me mu.» nusmmsr rm sun unuu we |en :2 Undermv «em A we. 0 Just now Mr Choong w-I: nymg|ha||V1eP|a\rl1Mha52|n3mnIn nusmmevs nnmugneux we yams wnen me Delendanl Is wumng wm. Plamlnl, . a Jmm am In 2022, wuunu you auvee 2 xu : mam cnslumers vncmdmq $aNmna’7 A V“. lyre: sm xszunwxwuwnuusymtg ‘ «mu. sum nmhnrwm .. u... e mm u. nrwhuflly -mm: dnunmnl y. mum W so, Sanmwna pun1a\IoIum[u:runl" Yes And In; P\mn|rl1 nu my nuugnea me Deiendam to take charge on ms Wm ror Sammna nnrwnun. cmncl or mm yes, carved Wan, Irs my m chame on the finance van on the urnrng pan rr yuu are mammnmu me mrpmm arrangre-nun rs rum in Sam »<.rcnyr Nnuht. so for bfllmq u $50 an rmpmm awed rn deuIm9 win we mmmar, agus av d=sIgrse7 Yes‘ agree Boeuafly Snnmma .5 . mulunalmnal company. so may wank! exnecl samelhmg of pmpev nrsvandam mgmeve: km Mpeflomiance. you auroe mm me? Mme. And Plinmm has nsvev assume anyonn lo aurs1Dal5ndIn|m handlmg me Sanm us‘: bdlmg, :9.“ ard\s.Ig|ea7 Junyesm nu Duly A Ag-c Dy 0) o x_« on: 15. FW4 (Exemmve Durscior 0! F) insisted man D Is capabxe cl handlvng San na's pcrifoho by mmsell am «hex rs not name out by P5 awn perlormance apprarsax on D, where D was assesssd In as less man saurslactory Q: average, at best 19. The !oI\owmg nransprrea during the cross examinmion c1PW—1 “a New. comm hack Co on he 3 Mr C'I00"w\ do yuu awree wmr ma thal actuafly Sam does run have any man quanmcauun m accounting’ A x awn o Du yuu knvw what rs M: qu2|\Il\<2mnn7 A sum 0 50, Sam has never acmeved me slandam cl exceflenl or onlslavvdmg m terms cl apnrarsan. corned" A Ovevaflryas overam yes 0 wrran do you mam by overuw A omau mean: flynu mad mr-,:rr...g av:mH ha never Q He never he rs ;us|an average wmkefl A Average worker a Verbs! only. amum Ami Mr Choonu yuu mum auvea wllh me max your busmasi rs a<>1ual\Y Irvlwnvma aver lm years «mm zow going up an an way‘ serum or ml’! A ‘We, carved 0 Am yuu would have mrea more mnnpawer m assnu you srfl H’? A Agree 0 us mean, your busmess Is goad ynu used |o mm mare people A Agree 0 And an «ms Mme, based on vmat you ma -5 omy Sum 15012 nmy are m charge or Sanmmas aemum‘ <:nrvs1:1" A Curved SIN xG1ahW\Y7iuNDH|J5yS|JW 5 “Nana s.r.r..r..rwrrr.“...mW...wrr.rr.r.m.m.r.r._.rr..NaW And you mum um arrangee addulnonzl slzflr |u emu In sannunas account as mu. ram 1l’7 Dlsagvai You say Wu canmfi Isarb mrsagree wny you flliagnaefi It depends on Im vmume an we crreru we we perm. r. manure ra handle a\un5, Ilvln why should we hlvs aaunrbnar arm: pub can be dune awn: >o>a> co So you are saym |ha1 Sam can do rx srene-r Yes. based on uurpb qvamminn r um M «b you Iha| ynur answer now arnuszry eanuaurers nun yum p-rvunrrenoe apurursar mac n show IMO you rusr mm. agtee av msauN1a7 A ‘d5-Igree“ :»o 20 as poor penorrrrance rs eleany renecnea rn me annual appraisal conduaea by F «or years 2020 and 2021 where D‘: pervarrnance was considered as ‘average”. D's supervisor nau also specmcaHy remarked lhal n has ‘no sense at urgencf and ‘response time Is bed". In mm. D‘: parlormance nas been Yound wanting since year 201a‘ based on me nbservauon oi as supenor, FW»2. 21. rnese negalwe remarks, eapecrauy concemlng D's poor lime managsmsnl, ought |D have raise a red neg on P to closely rnunuor D‘: work. More so when me pclflfoho handled by n Is one at me mam customers ufP. And mere rsa we days penod Ia submnlhe inyuraes In snon. v 0ugh| to have rsken s\eps Io preenrp: ma pumorled loss 22. The rbuuwrng uansprnea during the mass examlnalmn or PWr2 (cusrorner Service Manager of P), “u wnar about your apurarsaw Do you sums wmh nu rnanung or rr s even rbwsr scum some agreer snrns wrn Du rbwar more So. some agree wnn nne were aivenr some wm be men vus, Doflad Euflhua rs none or me uerns wm he hlghu wave, 4. rw r UOIIM my man can yuu sun rurnurnber wvra| Ive me rrerns max :5 Iowa! some man me me sraraa mars-» I armul rsrnunmar var this year 21:29, lam I an say Ih:| rr menlrnned about In: amsnflance‘ n mu be me rawesr sects rrr (arms afnlxendznce r1 wIH be the raweaw ves wnan abmn -n (arm: braaaummv rrerrr r r Awuummg Mu. «me me could be same some av lawersmre rwru awe u could be nme or renew n>o>o > o>n>o> srn xszunwrwbuwuwsysaurg 9 «nu. s.n.r nmhnrwm be u..a u my r... annn.ru -mm: dnuamnl y. muNa war A Yes a am you rznlvul remamblr cream A wen, u can say ma: (N: an: «arm pan aaaannnng wm be am»: 1 2‘ 1 5 lo 2 a vea. you can box at page as. them we (mu ovevafl rating tabh. un yuu am: nememberwhal n the uvevall rating mal you has gwen la nevenaanw A I cannot remenme: very dean um I aama say man I drd wnue some area iov Impmvemam lav mm In nnpmva we gwe hum chnnce Ia Impmve rm me weaknusui a Bul wmfld yuu wme me mm m ynnr away’! A vea a when wnmfl be my mnngv wnan was you! IaIIru;7 beval1‘2‘3‘6,wmch nne Vs ms'7 A Shomd ne lower man 2 u Lowevlhan 2 meanmg \eva|27 nun oy level I’7 Please be clear was new. A man aayma: \1veH o Hawmo. underlzvel m A vea o The seam: and me «me, nu unis no urgency, rarspmvd nme ws bed Vs oy yum A. V55 Q But m lerms av me aenannanae. Mes Lww‘ wtval x can gamer «mm yam answer .e you sad nevewuam s peflormarvoe was um sallslldmy am. ynu jmnefl me company back m my 201 s. aanecn Thus a whnl you have onaewea A Yes an AM n mean. «a lay new you saw 5\nce 2013 n we were to oumpa-a ma Lvew n we we¢e Io mmpare your ohservahun back m an 5 ind mmpnre mwnh me awrawsal rem M2070 and 21:21. a n a\mo:1 me same merew me even ovpenannanu A Yes a. llama’ semev Mun haw, un yuu speak In Ihe mm A V55, an... “ w n r me Flam was aware ol the Ddendanl vanure lo su nvo ces mlo §anmm § (ms genal 23 P davnslhal n was not aware of D‘: Iailme lu suhmn the mvmces Into SanmIns's c'ns perm, until aner D's Ieswgnalwon 1 find n xmpmbame that P was unaware of me awscarmelly lower Income rece ed Vrum sanmma smoe year zms fur me loHaw|ng reasons. 24. Fns1.F‘s management has access to aH ms accounlmg unlormauon. P theretore could have easily deueae-1 me unbmed mvmces to senmma em .aze.wm.a.awue,,am. 7 “Nair Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e met! a vsfly he nflmnnflly am. flnuamnl VI mum v-ma! vet, this puvpurledly went unoer the radar tor more lhan 3 years trom year 2019 to year 2022 25 Dunng cross examtnaltun. PW-1 (Execultve Director ul P) cunftrmed that ne would nronrtbr the revenue, the payment and the outstandrng payment wrtn respect to lhe customers rnen Jame atso tin’? Janice Ltew tt N5 want to nsstgn ner we can Evevynne Mn. ts H7 Meanmg tt oroytoeo we give aooess Amghh so t| means In say any at your enroteyees have pauwmu and ueentamv R-tevant untatayee we wttt otye access‘ a so your eornaanys vale: can be Men tronr rm system, correci? A Yes c Sat trorn tne FM syxlem ilm Mr Channgr you can aetuatty use tne oetatts ot tne piymem cetteoteo and tne payment oweo by yuurcunomet eoneor.» A correct 0 And mts FM system ts actuatty mm wrtt hnve Access to mm m synam Mr cnoonga A tr I mm to lean out t lmatmtblel. Q vou can .1 you wnmm7 A Va: A: vourwrre also can, Isn| N7 A Can a A o A o A 26 Secund‘ based on P‘: FM (Financtal Management) sysleru and tne statement :2! amounts generated trteretrom every month P woutd have been aware ortne outatanorng sum owed by Sanmtna F would atea be aware ot the Increasing unoata amount trorn Sanmtna lrom year 2020 onwards, by lookmg at me anrruat ttrrancrat statements It tndeed P was oblivious at the rncreasrrrg outstanorno amount trom Sanrmna‘ P nae onty rteett [0 meme 27 It Is rttoorcat tnat me huge eutstandrng sum trom sanmma would gn unoetecteo by F‘s msnagemenl lov years tn partteutar tmm year 2020 tRM212,ao4 90), year 2021 (RM7D1,n51 23; ano year 2022 (RM373,A62 65). 29. The tottawrrrg lvansptred durtng the cross exammalion or PW-3 1SemorAccounIs Exec eott=) ‘Q In your use no 3 Mae Tet-t you ntennoneo about tnn m system. can you rntann me court wmnl uno or rnrerrnarron ts eontarneo .n ma rm syslem7 srn xszunwrwwawnuusymtg 3 «st... sen-t ...n.rorrr .. u... In my a. onmnuuly mm: dnuamnl VI muua v-mat Au mas, an we mvonnauon an smpmnm, an m. lwuunlx oayme‘ on me awuumi vncnwable Aoooums pa-yam. luzuunl vaoswnb\e" Vase and an me slunmenls remeo mnllers \m:\udmg me mvmcesv Yes Puymem maurved «mm customers” Yes o >a>o>o 5: no rlweu tn aucuslhe m system Muss 7e« nnue someone amess Ihe m mug... mu be able ta relneve lorexampleme Vrwmoesu me Do and line shnvmng vrwmces nghl hke whal you have menlmned um now M Ma cusmmens Once you mg m In the FM system, m: wm no me In vvmvvslha mrom-.on Mlzrdmg me mvmoei, pom smpP"'u -nvwcu Do 1 nu ma: me, conmosoee, yes And lhun alw be auls no 951 In klvuw ham much rmney e ma hy In: custnmsn, carved? Yes AH customers. mvvecn Yes wm you as me somm Account: Exlcnmve genlmte me xlnlemenl M aoooum vor every Customer every momm vaa, mm a>o>o>o> rm now «ammo about Sanrmna. \e| 5 he sv9c1l\c,$anmma So. you km»: Sanmma lhu whale yea! yuu do how mum no me: and men yuu wfll am Know how much mvolnus mu -5 Assund mo In Sanmma Var Am aka yau mu knew haw much wwomes remammg unpaid by Sanmma. cnrvecn Revemng lo we Véarrenn name, now Yes. oor-on mm? vaav and name. Y: 50, a means «a uy |>u| sinus lmzzm iar every yeav, m. 2019 ynu mu kmmamm Ins and how much money ws mmed by Sanmma m zuw V2: And 2o2n how much money Is awed by sanmma‘ ourmc17 ves, oorvecl so on and su «om every yaav also ms same, ngN7 Yes a >0 o> o>_> o) What I inked you .. mu, you momeo me Oman mu every yeavemi you mu know vmemer hm much money Is ouusnenumg lrom mo cusloman wwmce unnam 547 ms amount Vs acaumuiallmz imoe me, we mam . Vessev sum [hen Increase, nu ma mcvsase aoam In 24:21 bscauu (ha mvmoes vemam unpan, wsnt M Ounacnzv nor: Yes Your yuat-and s|al:m:n| wumd have shown (ha! ms Increasing ovev me Yum‘ |sn‘| M 0)- SN xG1anww7>uNDHuSyxuw 5 «um. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>euIedIx:VHWhenrW\n|U|YMINIflnuamnlvnAFVLINQ W A HnIm' 29. ll the lap days Ilme perlpa lo Involoe Sanmlna ls onllcal, P should have monlluled |Ile snuallon IO ensure that the lnvololng IS done umeoualy. Proper checks and palances ougm Ia have bssn pm In place In ensure that me lrlvuices are nol omllled and become uneleunaple Especlally glven P‘s knowledge pl D‘; shoflcomlngs and poor Ilme rnanagernenl P eannol blame DI efl D co flounder on me own for more lhan 3 years from year 201910 year 2022 30, The cpun pl Appeal ln Malaysran Arrllne system and v Isrnall Neseruddin urn Abdul wenep [2021] 4 MLJ 724 qumed lnal “an employer must treat his employees lalny. ln nls mndua ol nls business, and m ms lrealmenl ol ms employees, an employer must an responsmly and ln good |al|h 31. In (hls lnslance, l apply lhat la mean that P should have provlded proper supevvlslon and adequate euppan lo D In carrylng pul me lab. Especlally when P was aware or US weakness. 0 had c0mmunlca|ed me slruggla regamlng lne workload Io P Regrenaply. P dud nol seem Io empalhlse mm D's mmeully. 32. Dunng cross akamlnallcrll D leslmed as lollows. 0 M25! l|u‘ apabll-I seyu cakap rnau nu lenun zma sehlngga sepnenmr 2022. men unload ponal CTSI nu ma lak Ermk Sam peman mamlnla umrla lam nil dalam mnxal Plalrllll lmmk upleea ml kspada SalmlIrla’> vu slapa Enclk sarn mlmn7 penoaran suea Mm meellnp. luk ln9a\ mas: munv rlapllap tahun pun ea. Ava sabab Em:lk sern merlulkul kalararlgan Enclk Snm rnernlnla penpa-an umuk upland lrwols kepada CTSI mmala Fnsal lepee llu kerla nlakln hznyak, lak hnleh handle‘ > o>o>o>o> 33 P argues than D ls llaple because ne was the only one who was pm in charge at sanmlmrs ppnlulm Eu| lherem lies me problem Gwen P's knowledge pl D's unsallslaclory perfarmanos, P should have pald closer allemlon And pemaps pul one ulher person en the lob. srn xezenwlmempnusynu. ‘“ «nu. Smnl luvlhnrwlll e. med u may he enun.l-y em. dnuavlml VI .rluNa vwul

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-24NCvC-1634-09/2022

PEMOHON MAZLAN BIN MOHAMED RESPONDEN 1. ) SHAPEE BIN MOHAMAD NOR 2. ) NORHAYATI BINTI MOHD NOR 3. ) AZIZAN BINTI MOHAMAD NOR 4. ) NORAZIAH BINTI MOHAMAD NOR 5. ) SITI FATIMAH BINTI KADRI 6. ) AZMAN BIN MOHAMAD NOR

Surat Kuasa Wakil yang diberikan kepada wakil yang dilantik tidak mengecualikan tanggungjawab asal pemberi kuasa tersebut.

14/12/2023

YA Puan Zaharah Binti Hussain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=09d79d37-5727-4997-9ce2-3423d98ad0c3&Inline=true

14/12/2023 10:13:33 BA-24NCvC-1634-09/2022 Kand. 12 S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N N53XCSdXl0mc4jQj2YrQww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal aA—2mcvc—1s34—n9/2022 Kand. 12 11/12/2012 ,1» 12 :1 MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI sum-1 ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL N0: BAJANCVC-1534-MI2022 ANTARA MAZLAN am MOHAMED mo. K/F: 750x17-045311) ...PLAlNT|F DAN 1. SHAPEE am MOHAMAD NOR (N0. KIP: ezams-10-5951) (Pnmogang Wakil Kuasa Mnmnrul surac Kuusn Wakll xununkh 23.11.2915 yang didaflarkan as bawnh No. Porsnrnhan 33523115 111 Mnhknmnh Tingnl Kunln Lumpur pldi 21.11.2015) 2. NORHAVATI EINTI MDHD NOR (No. KlP:65022E-101256) 3. AZIZAN BINYI MOHAMAD NOR (NO. K/P: 71n11oa.1o-5714) 4. NORAZIAN BINTI MOHAMAD NOR (NO. KIP: nnn5nw.14«5o:w) 5. SITI FATIMAH BINTI KADRI (NO. KlP:4011|lI-10-5352) 5,NN5:XmXmMDm_uW um mm“ 11.3: us/znzz Nnln s..1.1Mm.m1;. 15.4 1. mm 1.. nVWVuU|‘1 mm; nnmmnnl VII muna Wm a. Amnu am MOHAMAD NOR (NO. K/P: 6903024 043173) ...DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENQflAfiIMAN Fangnnalan [1] Fada 6 9.2023 Mahkamah Man membenarkan dan membsnkan Perimah sepem dvpehan Lmluk saman Pemula P\avmi da\am Lampiran 1 berlankh 29.9.2022 dsngan kos sebanyak RM3,UUD DU. [2] Perinlah yang dibenkan secara nngkasnya adalahz (1) Ferlntah unluk mengualkuasakan psvaxsanaan spesmk lerhadav Perianjian Jun! Beh hsnarikh 3 2 2017 yang dilandatangam an entara Defendan Penama dengan Puaimw berhubung pembehan sekepmg lanah koscng yang merupakzn pwov/not 2: mg berukuran kemasan soon kaki persegx Ianu sehahagian danpada sekepmg Ianah kosung yang dlpsgang an bawah Haxmmk Geran Muklm 2394, No Lo! 1443. Tempal Earn 11 Muxrm dan Daerah Hum Langal, Negsri Smangar ('Hananah IersebuI"| flsngan harga behan sebanyak RM1co,ooc.ou; nu znwtvt 151:1 as/mu -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm (H) Fsrvflah bahawa Deiandan-de(endan membual permohonan unluk perlukaran dam vansn ‘Penamarf kepada Eangunan‘ Hakmfllk Bsraslngan . Hananah mpecan ssmpadan dan menanaaxangani mrang pmdahmihk 14A (xv) Mmkan kosang diberikan kepada P\a\nM [V] Delendan-deiendan mambayar squmlan kos sebanyak RM220,750.00 (V1) Devendan-deferman membayar gamirugl Kenentu sebanyak RMao.0oa.au Latabolakuug kn [31 Sum! Kussa Wakil bertavfkh zguzocs Dalendan 1 dsngan Detenuarmarenaan 2 Q 4 5 as Defendan 1 man dxberi kuasa oleh Dslendan 2, 3, 4, 5 8. 6 sehagai penjusl-gemua\ flan man Ianah umuk menandavangam Perjanfian Jual beli sena mengualkuasakan periaksanaannya. [4] Surat kuasa wa banankh 23112016 Defend 1 dan Abd. % Defendarm smaku Penwal dan Psmihk Berdaflar Harlanah Aelah melanlik Ana Jabber bin Mohamed melalm Surat Kuasa waku benankh 23.11 2015 unluk msmhina rumah kediaman di avas havlanah cerssbul. ,NN5:xCwmMD‘muW 3HIA—2oNLv:»(s3»I nu/2042 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 19 orang pembeh xavan msnanuaxangani Penanjian Jua\ Beli dan P\a\nuf adiflah salah searang psmbelu xerseum. [5] Suratkuasa waku b nkh 23.8 2017 Deienaam 11 an Ad ah him: And Jabber Apabila Abd. Jabbar hm Mohamed Ialah menmggar dunia, Dehanaan 1 |a\ah melanfik anak At-ti. Jabber mu Axiqah sebagal waki! Kuasa mala\w ‘Surat Kuasa WakiI' benarikh 23.8 2017. la] Pram ssbagar pemhslx man mewaksanakan unggungawabnya dsngan membayar Kesemmhan wang pembelian hananah lensebut [71 Devemsrmeveman sebagai pemllik nerdananexan gagafl menukar syamt harlanah dan gagal rnemindahmilik hanansh kepada Plamlwf sebagzvmana yang dnexspxan dalam FeI1’anJ\an Jua\ new Pnrumukan undang-undang menguvul sum Wukll Kuasa as bawull Am sum: Kuu u W|k||194fl(Akta 424) [31 Suralwakfl kuasa ada\ah sural inslrumemdalam mana dmyauakan banawa pemben kuasa membari kuasa kepada penenma kuasa unluk mekaksanakan apa-apa xanggungjawab avau Iugasan secav-a umum alau secara spesifik bagx pmak pemben kuasa aeas nama penenma kuasa. WN5:XmmMD‘zWW o\aA—z1Ntv(—1sM nu/zozz -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm m lanya adalah pembefian kuasa dlbuat mekalul Surat Kuasa Waki\ dun dmandatangam o\eh pemban kuasa sahaja. no] Kuasa panenma berganlung kepada Kuasa yang dlmnmkan kepadanya areh pemben kuasa seperli yang dioerunlukkan aavam Surat Kuasa wakn. [11] Rujuk Kepada kes mgmm. rum.“ Hamid v. Llng Sing Ping mu) 2 MLJ 40:. VA Ham menyalakan: ‘C/suss a or the pews! of armmey mnwm Sank ta mm. Ins dutvndinlk prupsrm Du! Mons/dsr ma! mspowurnodo so mustbe ruadfvv 2!: ccmex! in mg paws! OI zmomay Io dstsrmms ms Umflaflans ol such power.’ Wavucalron 5 am msfmmcrvl purpodrng to avail . newer olsflomey oi mm: a nu- mny u an Mfice aims Rugvshav m a Samar Rsgrslrar /n scvmmarms wm Mrs Ad mm mm or my me oommanaemlnr oflms Act, snan, so far at my be wvvwatvms mm the team: onus mmmm, vontmue In my Imlfl none: In wtmflfl of MB revowfton menu! by (he amen, has bull dipasllillm avnry am In whim mo 0/Wu: may or we may lnereaflms been aoda;1asned,orar‘Iharnvn domvurlhs donsa Iva: dledollhe am. has become or unsound mlmt or me donov has bworma admagsd m be or summcvc mu as/Inn unsound mm-1 at a reserving mic! has um man. egs7n:1 mm In bankruptcy [12] Kes Hnnluh mm: Sulnlmnn v. Abdul Kndlr bln Sulnlrnln dln lain-Inln [2015] MLJU 407 memutuskan bshawa dalam menemi Seksyen 5 den 6 Power or Allumey Am 1949. melalui susunan Derkalaan dan kesannya adalah sangat Jexas. navam keadaan yang sadsmikian adalah menjam tugas Mahksmah Fm unluk memberi kesan den ms! undang» undang nu » '.lustsru iru. Surat Kuasa Wakrl (P5) yang um belada da/am rm‘/rkan Plain!!! ads/ah sudah rs!ba(a/ dim I/dak be/sh dikualkuasaknn /ag: Says mgm menegaskan bahsws Sula! Kuass Wskrl bukanlsh sualu Instrument untuk mamben halla telapl hanyalah mamberr kuass unluk msngurus X hananah semasa Pemben Sula! Wakil Kuasa mesih mdup dan meru/uk kepada perunrukan undang-undang mamlrul Seksyen 5 am 5 Akka Swat Kuasa Wakfl 1949 m ates, ads/an /alas memmjukksrl bahawa spams berlakunya kemarian Demberi kuasa alau pensnma kuasa, maka Sumt Kussa Wakrl Isrssbul akan lematal dengsn ssndlrlnys. Da/am msmufuskan rsu lnl, says mgin msnyalakan /uga bahawa sesuam Surat Kuasa Wakil Eda/ah lfdak ssms dari segrprmslp darn konsepnya dsngan jar!/I, wauar slaupun kapulussn mar s: mazi. (P5) hanysran suramuesa Wakil den ianya bukanlzalv gm/r, Wssrm‘ araupun kelzulusan rife! si man‘. Sesualu Surat Kuass Wakil ndak akan den tfdak pslnah akan msn1sn1r]anii, 6\nA—7oNrvL nu H9/Inn -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm wasrar srsupun ksputusan niat si man ksrana ranys benbaza den‘ sagr plinslp darn konssprvya dun dart sudul osrumiangan fanyajuga sangar berbeza' Annlisis Mnhkuman [19] Surat Kuasa waku berlankh 23.11.2015 di anlari Dsfendan 1 dangan Abd. Jabhar dan se\evusnya Surat Kuasa WEKH nemarikh 23.05.2017 dw anlara Devendan 1 dengan Anqan mun Am: Jabhar adavah melibalk/an P\amINsebaga1Pembeh hananah tersebul [141 sum Kuasa Wakil hersebul membenkan kuasa kspada Abd. Jabber dan satemsnya Auqan unmk memaxankan ksna—karia msnukar hakmmk daripada Mama-nama Delsndan kepada nama P\a\nM ssbagax pemlhk ham. [15] Defendan 1 juga hersama Defsndamielendan Yam udak ba\eh menggunakan a\asan bahawa telsh ada Surat Kuasa waku yang dibenkan kepada Abd. Jabber din Ahqah unmk melepaskan diri danpada (anggungyswab senagai Perqual Hananan Iersebul [as] Daflendan-ddendan map panu memalum syaral Penanusn Jual sen tersehul 7\a/xanucvrrxsu us/zou -ma Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxeusedmvsfltmsnflmnnfllyMimsdnu-mnlwanF\uNG pm [17] Sekiranya wakd kuass gagal memaumr arahan Defsndan 1, make: Deiendan-dehndan inf herlanggungjawah untuk membenkan garmrugw kepada F\a!n1i1 ssbagal pemheu. POrI|lI|JP us: Esrdasarkan penelluan larsebul, Wawnfif adalah bemsk unmk msnaapalkan haknya hsrdasarkan Penzlnjxin Jun! B21? tersebul Delendan 1 dan Defendamdefendan mm Aidak bcleh msnggunakan ahsan Keudakpatuhan urang yang dxbenkan kuasa dalam Surat Kuasa Wskil unluk menglngkan Penanjlan Jua\ Es\i lersebul [19] O\eh nu, Psrmlah umuk mengualkuasakan psnaksanaan spesifik Ierhadap Perianjlan Jual Eeh aaaran dlbsrikan Berlankh 1 Disember 2023 (ZAHARAH BINTI HUSSAIN) Pesunmjaya Kshakiman Mahkamah Tinggi NCVC 2 Shah Alam nu Hunt sssms/znzz -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm KAUNSEL: sag. pmak Pnrayu/Dulandun-dofvndnn: Teman Azhar Azlz 5 Assouimu N0 B~12(Le'veVB). DI-IDVEK ONCE‘ Mm Azsflea, Persxaran Eandaraya, Seksyen 14. 40000 Shah Alam‘ Selangm Darul Ehsan EmaH' gsneral@azharaziz com T21: 03-55922113 Bag! Plhak Rupondnnlfialnlii Tetuan Tengku Azhna, Azlan Shah A Azman um 7:52. Jalan Wangsa Dellms 5, Pusal Bandar Wangsa Maw (nsc). Wsngss Maju‘ 53300 Kuala Lumpur awn zmumou as/2021 -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm Rujuknn ku: 1. Magnum Finance Bemaa v Lmg smg Ping [1955] 2 MLJ A03 2. Hanizah bmfl Smavman v. Abdul Ka bun sulaiman dan Lain-lam [2015] MLJU 467 nun 14Ncvc1sx¢.ns/21:11 -um s.n.»...m.mu.w....nm.m..mxn.u-ymw.anm.mv...num pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCC-118-03/2023

PLAINTIF RHB Private Equity Holdings Sdn Bhd DEFENDAN 1. ) Peter Charles Smerling 2. ) Zuraidah Bakerche Smerling

Summary Judgment application allowed - Claim based on a Put-Option Agreement - Whether there was a representation that the Plaintiff would always provide capital to the company - Whether by the Plaintiff's previous oppression action - Plaintiff is precluded from seeking this judgment

14/12/2023

YA Tuan Ong Chee Kwan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b2b8ea54-9a3b-417c-b87d-2704970656e0&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO.: WA-22NCC-118-03/2023 BETWEEN RHB PRIVATE EQUITY HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. [Company No.: 199801002563(458689-W)] … PLAINTIFF AND 1. PETER CHARLES SMERLING (United States of America Passport No.: 422022633) 2. ZURAIDAH BAKERCHE SMERLING (Singapore NRIC No.: S7139318-F) …DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is my judgment in respect of the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment for a claim arising from a Put Option Agreement. [2] The Defendants raised only 2 triable issues both of which did not find any favour from this Court. 14/12/2023 15:58:40 WA-22NCC-118-03/2023 Kand. 37 S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Background Facts [3] The Defendants are husband and wife. The 2nd Defendant, is at all material time, a proxy to her husband, the 1st Defendant. [4] In 2012, the 1st Defendant came to know about the business of L&S Cosmetic and Toiletries (M) Sdn. Bhd. (“LSSB”) and LSSB’s wholly subsidiary, Citychemo Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd. (“CMSB”). These companies are involved in the manufacture and supply of cosmetic products and hair shampoo. The previous owner was one Seng San Bing who represented to the 1st Defendant that LSSB’s and CMSB’s revenue were substantially contributed from Cosway’s and Summit’s orders. [5] The 1st Defendant looked for investors to acquire the two companies. The Plaintiff then was interested to finance and become a shareholder of the Defendants’ company. [6] Negotiations took place between parties. It is the Defendants’ case that the Plaintiff, being the private equity entity, represented to the 1st Defendant that it would be responsible for funding the acquisition of LSSB and CMSB as well as to provide additional funds in LSSB and CMSB from time to time after the completion of the acquisition. [7] As a result of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff and Defendants entered a Shareholders’ Agreement (“SSA”), a Subscription Agreement (“SA”) and a Put Option Agreement (“POA”). It was agreed that one Satin Straits Sdn. Bhd. (“SSSB”) shall act as a special vehicle company to acquire LSSB and CMSB under which the Plaintiff owns S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 45,000,000 redeemable convertible preference shares (“the Shares”) in SSSB. [8] In or around 2015, LSSB was technically insolvent and needed funds to continue its business. The request was made to the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant. However, the Plaintiff did not accede to the 1st Defendant’s request because it was not prepared to increase its exposure in this business anymore. [9] The Plaintiff’s representative and the Defendants did a fund-raising exercise which led to one Tan Boon Seng (“Tan”) investing in LSSB through his company, Proton Generasi Sdn. Bhd. (“PGSB”). [10] Tan, through PGSB then owned 50% of LSSB whereas SSSB owned the other half. After Tan’s initial investment, the fund was still insufficient to grow the businesses of LSSB and CMSB. As of 2019, Tan then further invested a sum of RM 29 million which resulted in a dilution of shares belonging to SSSB in LSSB. [11] In 2019, the Plaintiff filed an oppression action against the Defendants, Tan and PGSB in the High Court vide Civil Suit No. WA-22NCC-177-04/2019 (“CS177”) seeking relief that the Shares be bought out in the sum of RM 111,974,400.00. The Plaintiff’s action was dismissed. The finding of the High Court was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal. [12] Having failed in its oppression action, the Plaintiff then commenced this action for specific performance against the Defendants under S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 the POA to compel the Defendants to purchase the Shares in the sum of RM 268,220,901.50. Salient terms of POA [13] The terms of the POA between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are clear. Essentially the POA gives the Plaintiff the right to ‘put’ the Shares to the Defendants and require the Defendants to purchase the Shares from the Plaintiff at the agreed price. [14] The Plaintiff had invested RM45 million in the Defendants’ company, SSSB by subscribing to the Shares pursuant to the SA. [15] In consideration of, amongst others, the Plaintiff entering into the SA, the Defendants irrevocably granted to the Plaintiff the option to require the Defendants to purchase from the Plaintiff the Shares at the Put Option Price [see Clause 3.1, Put Option Agreement]. [16] The Put Option Price is also defined in Clause 1.1 of the POA. Essentially, it is the subscription price of the Shares and a premium at 25% of internal rate of return per annum compounded for the period of investment. The calculation for the Put Option Price amounting to RM268,220,901.50. [17] The Plaintiff contended that it is entitled to exercise the Put Option in the event SSSB fails to redeem the Shares and the default and or breach continues for more than 90 days from the date of notice given by RHB [see: Clause 4.1(a), Put Option Agreement]. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Plaintiff exercises Put Option [18] As SSSB did not redeem the Shares, the Plaintiff had proceeded to exercise the Put Option under the POA. [19] By a notice dated 26.9.2022, the Plaintiff required the Defendants to, as agreed, purchase the Shares from the Plaintiff at the Put Option Price of RM268,220,901.50 within 30 days from the date of the notice. The Defendants, in breach of the POA, failed to take any steps to do so. [20] By a letter dated 10.1.2023, the Plaintiff through their solicitors, Messrs. Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, gave the Defendants another 30 days to comply with their obligations under the POA. The Defendants failed to do so, hence this legal action and the present application under Enclosure 8 for summary judgment. Triable Issues [21] The Defendants raised 2 triable issues to resist the summary judgment application. [22] First, it is the Defendants’ case that they were at the material time induced by the Plaintiff’s representations into entering the POA. These representations turn out to be false. Of significance is the representation that the Plaintiff would provide additional capital in SSSB’s subsidiary, namely LSSB, and LSSB’s subsidiary, namely CMSB even after acquiring the Shares. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [23] The Defendants contended that there is a prima facie circumstantial evidence on the aforesaid pleaded matter. It is this. Prior to the commencement of the present suit, the Plaintiff had prosecuted the abovementioned claim of minority oppression against the shareholders of SSSB and its subsidiary LSSB, including the Defendants here. [24] In CS177, the Plaintiff had prayed for a Buy Out of the Shares by the Defendants therein. This is significant because instead of exercising its’ put-option under the POA, the Plaintiff elected to embark on a complex journey of having the Shares disposed of by alleging oppression. [25] The CS177 suit was dismissed by the Court after a full trial. After having failed to pursue its relief of a buyout, the Plaintiff now resorted to the POA as a backdoor attempt to have the Shares disposed of. [26] It was contended that after having elected to pursue a relief for a Buy Out in the oppression suit CS177 vide a full trial, it is now trying to secure a summary judgment for the disposal of the same subject matter. It gives rise to a reasonable inference in the Defendants’ favour, that the Plaintiff must have realised that there was a perceived difficulty in enforcing the POA due to the representations which it had made to the Defendants. In other words, it was contended that the Plaintiff at all material times knew there were some factors vitiating the Defendants’ free consent when they entered into the POA. This defence, if proven at trial, is a complete defence to a specific performance action. Reference was made to S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 the case of Yap Khay Cheong Sdn Bhd v Susan George TM George [2018] 5 CLJ 345 whereby the Court of Appeal held as follows: - “[16] The second SPA, since it was found by the learned trial judge to have been executed without free consent and by undue influence, is voidable at the option of the defendant, as provided under s. 19(1) of the Contracts Act 1950. The defendant had correctly exercised her right to vitiate the second SPA, hence there was no valid contract to enforce any specific relief sought by the plaintiff. It was for this reason that we agreed with the learned judge that, no specific relief is available to the plaintiff.” [See also: - Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Irham Niaga Sdn Bhd [2011] 1 MLJ 752]. [27] In fact, during the trial of CS177, the Plaintiff’s witness testified to the Plaintiff’s failure to provide additional capital in LSSB and its subsidiary CMSB. According to her testimony, the Plaintiff made the decision not to provide additional capital because of its fear of exposure. The High Court held in CS177 that as a result of the Plaintiff’s aforesaid decision, other investors had to be brought in and hence the dilution of the Plaintiff’s stake in LSSB held through SSSB. [28] In CS177, the Plaintiff did not take the position that it was not bound to provide capital. This, again, shows a prima facie circumstantial evidence of the Defendants’ pleaded case. [29] With respect to learned counsel for the Defendants, I see no merits in the contentions raised. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [30] The Defendants say the POA is voidable. They alleged that the Plaintiff had verbally represented that it would inject additional funds from time to time but did not do so. [31] This allegation is not only inherently improbable as no investor is able to commit to providing additional unlimited funds for an unlimited time, it is also inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence. [32] There is nothing in the POA (or even the SA and or the SSA) to indicate that the Plaintiff will continue to provide additional funds. [33] There is nothing in the POA (or even the SA and or the SSA) to indicate that the Plaintiff will financially support and continue to invest in SSSB and its subsidiaries as and when needed. [34] As aptly put by Kang Hwee Gee J (as his Lordship then was) in Sime Bank Bhd (formerly known as United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd) v Kuala Lumpur City Securities Sdn Bhd [2001] 5 MLJ 670 at page 683: “The put option agreement, it is clear to me, is a highly formal, properly negotiated and professionally drawn up document by practitioners of law. It imposes upon the defendant the liability to pay out at its worst a very large sum of money should the borrower default on the loan and the plaintiff decides to exercise the option. Correspondingly, for the put option that it gave to the plaintiff, the defendant stands to gain a put option fee of 2% of the said sum — a hefty RM3.68m from the borrower. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 It would be totally inconceivable in my view, that for a contract of such importance, the contracting parties would not have drafted into the put option agreement all the essential terms and conditions they had agreed upon with accuracy and certainty, so as to leave little or none to construction in the event of a dispute. Least of all it is inconceivable that they would have left unsaid those other terms and conditions they had orally agreed upon that would bind them. In the event, I would have to find that the agreement is conclusive of all the essential terms that would govern their contractual relationship at the time they signed it. It follows that any such pre-contract promises, representations and understandings, verbal or otherwise, whether made by Mr Robert Young, Ms Chan Mo Lin or by anyone else, even if true, are clearly extrinsic evidence which can never be allowed into evidence to add, subtract, vary or contradict the black and white terms and conditions of the put option agreement in a trial. Having to exclude such extrinsic evidence, it follows that the parties would have to be bound by the terms embodied within the four corners of the put option agreement read wherever necessary (by reason of cl 16 of the agreement), in conjunction with the facility agreement and the charge of securities.” (emphasis added) [35] The POA expressly sets out the parties’ representations made in Clause 7. There is clearly no such representation as now alleged by the Defendants. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [36] The POJ also contains an ‘entire agreement clause’ in Clause 18 – all the terms and conditions agreed upon are embodied in the agreement. [37] Accordingly, there is no basis to this desperate attempt by the Defendants to evade their legal obligations under the POA. These are legal obligations that they were happy to assume when they wanted the Plaintiff’s investment of RM45 million. [38] In fact, the Defendants were unable to produce any contemporaneous communications alluding to the alleged representation. Furthermore, no steps were ever taken to rescind the POA on the ground of misrepresentation as claimed. Previous minority oppression proceedings [39] The Defendants raised the previous minority oppression proceedings in Suit CS177 taken by the Plaintiff which has been dismissed by the Courts. [40] However, these previous proceedings were on completely different footings and cause of action. In the previous proceedings, the Plaintiff was seeking relief as a minority shareholder for alleged oppression. In the present proceedings, the Plaintiff is exercising its contractual rights under the POA. The Put Option had not been exercised previously. It was irrelevant to the minority oppression proceedings and could not in any case have been raised there. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [41] Res judicata does not arise as the cause of action and issues raised in this suit are separate and entirely different from the previous oppression proceedings. [See: Loh Holdings Sdn Bhd v Peglin Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1984] 2 MLJ 105, FC] [42] In addition, the Defendants contended that in the circumstances of the present action, it is not fit and proper for a decree of specific performance. This defence was founded on section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1950. It has two folds. [43] It is said that a decree of specific performance would be giving an unfair advantage to the Plaintiff. This is because in the event that a decree of specific performance is granted, the Plaintiff will be given an unfair advantage over the full actual and or potential value of shares in SSSB as if SSSB still wholly owns LSSB. In fact, it is not the case now. SSSB, after the dilution, only owns approximately less than 10% of LSSB. It is said that this directly affects the value of SSSB’s shares. [44] To compound matters, this unfair advantage is intertwined with the issue of the Plaintiff’s misrepresentation. Had the Plaintiff fulfilled its representation by providing an additional capital, a third-party investor would not have been involved in the business of LSSB which had affected the value of SSSB. [45] In the case of LY Furniture Sdn. Bhd. v Lifestyle Enterprise LY [2015] 1 LNS 1557, the Court of Appeal held as follows: - S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “[85] It follows that section 21(b) which also falls under Chapter II of the SRA is also applicable. This section requires the court to consider as relevant factors the relative hardships caused by the enforcement or non-enforcement of the contract. [86] As such the extreme position taken by Lifestyle, namely that factors like hardship and other equitable considerations are irrelevant to the exercise of discretion by the court, is less than convincing. It would not be tenable for a court to simply exclude from the sphere of its consideration such factors as hardship and reasonableness in determining whether or not a negative undertaking or covenant in a contract ought in fact to be enforced.” [46] Also, it is contended that a decree of specific performance would involve some hardship on the Defendants. [47] The Put-Option Price stated in the POA was derived from the information given by the previous owner of LSSB and CMSB, Seng San Bing. It turned out that the information was false. Seng San Bin was sued by SSSB for his misrepresentation as Seng San Bin suppressed material facts on the orders of Cosway and Summit from the 1st Defendant through SSSB. This Civil Suit was filed in the High Court which found liability in favour of SSSB but only awarded nominal damages. [See: Satin Straits Sdn. Bhd. Seng San Bin [2020] 8 MLJ 553] [48] The contention was that the Defendants could not have foreseen the aforesaid circumstances that Seng San Bing would make a false misrepresentation to the Defendants which the same led to fixing the Put Option Price in the POA. S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [49] Again, with respect, the is also no merits to the issue. [50] The contention is inextricably linked to the alleged misrepresentation which I have dismissed above and with that, the contention by the Defendants simply cannot be sustained. [51] As regards the Put Option Price of the Shares under the POA, this is a commercial matter between the parties and this Court will not interfere with the terms of the POA setting out the manner in which the Put Option Price is to be computed. Conclusion [52] Accordingly, for the reasons above, this Court grants the Plaintiff an order in terms of the application for summary judgment under Enclosure 8 with costs. Dated the 12th day of December 2023 ONG CHEE KWAN Judge of the High Court of Malaya High Court of Kuala Lumpur, NCC2 S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Counsel: 1. Sean Yeow together with Andrea Chew and Ang Yi Shan (PDK) for Plaintiff Messrs. Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill (Kuala Lumpur) 2. Dato' C. K. Lim together with Damien Chan, Ian Hannibal, Jeff Ng and Lee Yu Jun (PDK) for Defendants Messrs. Damien Chan, Hannibal & Ng Chambers (Kuala Lumpur) Case Reference: 1. Yap Khay Cheong Sdn Bhd v Susan George TM George [2018] 5 CLJ 345 2. Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Irham Niaga Sdn Bhd [2011] 1 MLJ 752 3. Sime Bank Bhd (formerly known as United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd) v Kuala Lumpur City Securities Sdn Bhd [2001] 5 MLJ 670 4. Loh Holdings Sdn Bhd v Peglin Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1984] 2 MLJ 105 5. LY Furniture Sdn. Bhd. v Lifestyle Enterprise LY [2015] 1 LNS 1557 6. Satin Straits Sdn. Bhd. Seng San Bin [2020] 8 MLJ 553 Legislation Reference: 1. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 S/N VOq4sjuafEG4fScElwZW4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CB-24NCvC-35-03/2021

PEMOHON 1. ) LEE KWAI FONG 2. ) WONG HON WAI RESPONDEN Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Raub

Perbicaraan penuh - Pembetulan oleh Pendaftar terhadap suratan hakmilik - Pendaftar dikatakan melakukan frod - Seksyen 380 Kanun Tanah Negara - Pelan tanah yang ditentusahkan oleh Pendaftar atau Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan Malaysia - Akta Pelan dan Dokumen Tanah dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980) - Tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan frod - Tuntutan ditolak.

13/12/2023

YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=334dc277-bed9-461a-b6bb-ba82f81b2c87&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - CB-24NCVC-35-03-2021 Lee Kwai Fong & 1 Lagi v PTD Raub 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO: CB-24NCVC-35-03/2021 Dalam perkara mengenai semua bahagian tanah yang dipegang di bawah hakmilik sementara HS(M) 6104, PT 11067, Mukim Gali, Daerah Raub, Negeri Pahang Dan Dalam perkara Seksyen 321, Seksyen 417 dan Seksyen 418 Kanun Tanah Negara Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 55A Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA 1. LEE KWAI FONG (NO. K/P: 620907-06-5396) 13/12/2023 10:06:22 CB-24NCvC-35-03/2021 Kand. 74 S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 2. WONG HON WAI (NO. K/P: 820912-06-5047) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH RAUB PAHANG … DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Plaintif-Plaintif dalam kes ini memohon supaya kaveat persendirian No. Perserahan 934/2020 bertarikh 23.12.2020 yang dimasukkan oleh Defendan dibatalkan. Plaintif-Plaintif juga memohon satu deklarasi bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif adalah merupakan pemilik berdaftar kepada tanah tersebut iaitu Lot 5804 menurut dokumen hakmilik yang dikeluarkan bagi tanah tersebut. [2] Perbicaraan kes ini telah dijalankan mulai 19.12.2022. Pihak Plaintif telah mengemukakan tiga orang saksi dan Defendan mengemukakan dua orang saksi. S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [3] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan saksi-saksi dan juga dokumen- dokumen yang difailkan adalah didapati bahawa isu yang timbul ialah: (a) sama ada dakwaan pihak Plaintif bahawa telah terdapat pindaan kepada pelan asal tanah dilakukan secara frod oleh Defendan; dan (b) adakah pembetulan yang dilakukan oleh Defendan di dalam dokumen hakmilik adalah sejajar dengan seksyen 380 Kanun Tanah Negara (KTN). Fakta dan Keterangan [4] Pihak Plaintif mendakwa bahawa mereka adalah merupakan pemilik berdaftar kepada tanah yang berkenaan. Menurut dokumen hakmilik keluaran kawasan tanah yang digariskan merah dalam pelan yang disertakan bersama-sama dengan hakmilik tersebut adalah diloretkan dengan warna merah atas Lot 5804. [5] Pada Disember 2020 terdapat seorang individu yang dikenali sebagai Encik Kow Tuck Hoong telah memegang hakmilik HSM 260 PT 318 Mukim Gali, Daerah Raub mendakwa bahawa beliau adalah merupakan pemilik tanah tersebut. [6] Plaintif-Plaintif telah melantik seorang juruukur untuk mengukur tanah mereka dan telah memaklumkan kepada Plaintif bahawa tanah tersebut yang dikatakan kepunyaan Encik Kow Tuck Hoong adalah S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 berada di Lot 5804 seperti yang terdapat pada dokumen hakmilik Plaintif. Pihak Plaintif telah melantik peguam untuk membuat semakan berkenaan tanah tersebut dan telah diberitahu secara lisan bahawa tanah tersebut (tanah yang dimiliki oleh Encik Kow Tuck Hoong - HSM 260 PT 318 Mukim Gali) sepatutnya berada di Lot 5803. [7] Pihak Plaintif telah mengambil inisiatif untuk memfailkan keveat persendirian ke atas tanah tersebut iaitu di Lot 5803 tetapi ia telah ditolak oleh Pejabat Tanah. Pihak Plaintif mendakwa bahawa pada 22.01.2021 terdapat seorang individu yang dikatakan sebagai Pegawai Pejabat Tanah Daerah Raub bertemu dengan pihak Plaintif dan meminta mereka menandatangani satu dokumen yang dikenali sebagai Borang 2B Kanun Tanah Negara iaitu notis untuk mengemukakan dokumen dan meminta pihak Plaintif mengemukakan dokumen kepada Pejabat Tanah. [8] Sebaliknya Defendan dalam keterangannya menyatakan bahawa pada 09.12.2020 telah diterima aduan secara bertulis daripada seorang Kow Tuck Hoong iaitu pemilik tanah di HSM 260 PT 318 Mukim Gali Daerah Raub, Pahang. Analisa Isu (a) [9] Peguam pihak Plaintif dalam hujahannya menyatakan bahawa Defendan tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk menukarkan tanah-tanah S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Plaintif kepada En. Kow Tuck Hoong seperti yang terdapat di dalam muka surat 81 hingga 87 Ikatan A. Pihak Plaintif menyatakan bahawa Saksi Defendan Kedua iaitu Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk membuat pelan yang dikeluarkan. Ia sepatutnya dibuat oleh Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan atau pihak yang diberi kuasa. Ini adalah sejajar dengan peruntukan di bawah seksyen 3 Akta Pelan Dan Dokumen Tanah Dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980) yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “3 Pelan yang dikeluarkan secara fotografi, dan salinan pelan tanah adalah mematuhi secukupnya undang- undang yang menghendaki dan salinan pelan dilukis Jika, di bawah peruntukan mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang ditentukan dalam Jadual, pelan atau salinan pelan mana-mana tanah dikehendaki dilukis, terkandung di dalam atau dilampirkan kepada apa-apa dokumen, atau apa- apa salinan sesuatu dokumen dikehendaki dibuat atau diserahkan kepada seseorang, adalah mencukupi bagi maksud-maksud sesuatu undang-undang bertulis itu bagi melampirkan kepada dokumen tersebut pelan yang dikeluarkan secara fotografi atau salinan pelan tanah tersebut atau membuat atau menyerah satu salinan dokumen tersebut yang dikeluarkan secara fotografi, mengikut mana yang berkenaan: S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Dengan syarat bahawa- (a) pelan atau salinan mana-mana pelan atau dokumen yang dikeluarkan secara fotografi dibuat oleh Ketua Pengarah Ukur atau oleh seorang yang diberi kuasa dengan sewajarnya secara bertulis olehnya untuk melakukannya; dan (b) pelan atau salinan tersebut diakui oleh Ketua Pengarah Ukur atau orang yang membuatnya sebagai pelan yang benar dan betul terhadap tanah sedemikian atau sebagai salinan daripada pelan asal atau dokumen asal yang benar dan tepat, mengikut mana yang berkenaan.” [10] Dalam kes ini mahkamah merujuk kepada pelan tanah bagi GM 10131 di halaman 87 Ikatan A yang menunjukkan bahawa pengesahan dibuat oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abdul Jalil bagi pihak Pentadbir Tanah Raub untuk pelan tersebut. Isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Peguam Plaintif ialah pengesahan pelan tersebut tidak teratur disebabkan ia bercanggah dengan peruntukan seksyen 3 Akta Pelan Dan Dokumen Tanah Dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980). Sebaliknya Peguam Persekutuan berhujah bahawa ianya tidak menjejaskan keesahan pelan tersebut. [11] Oleh itu mahkamah perlu menimbangkan adakah pengesahan daripada Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abdul Jalil tersebut adalah berkenaan dengan pelan tersebut seperti yang dikehendaki di bawah seksyen 3 Akta Pelan Dan Dokumen Tanah Dan Lombong (Salinan S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980) atau hanya sekadar pengesahan bahawa dokumen tersebut adalah betul seperti yang tercatat dalam pelan yang disimpan oleh Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan. [12] Pelan di halaman 87 Ikatan A juga menunjukkan bahawa salinan yang diakui benar itu adalah pelan bertarikh 26.05.1921 bagi Lot 5803. Mahkamah ini berpendapat pengesahan dokumen yang perlu dibuat di bawah Akta Pelan Dan Dokumen Tanah Dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980) ialah bertujuan untuk memastikan bahawa ia adalah sesuatu yang telah dibuat secara teratur oleh Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan. Ia bagi mengelakkan sebarang penyelewengan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan pelan dikemukakan oleh pihak selain daripada Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan. Apa yang ada dalam muka surat 87 Ikatan A tersebut adalah hanya merupakan pengesahan daripada Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil terhadap dokumen yang telah dilakukan penyemakan olehnya semasa memberikan keterangan lisan seperti berikut: Ben Ok maksudnya En. Fakhri yang menandatangani sijil pengesahan ini ya? Fakhri Betul. Ben Adakah bermaksud bahawa En. Fakhri membuat pengesahan bahawa salinan pelan ini betul lagi benar sejak tahun 26.05.1921? Fakhri Ya. Mengikut pelan PA 26533 yang dikeluarkan oleh Jupem. S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Ben Ok yang ini ialah Pelan TANPA SKALA ya? Fakhri Ya. Ben Adakah anda mempunyai surat kuasa dari Ketua Pengarah Ukur untuk menandatangani sijil pengesahan ini? Fakhri Kamu punya kuasa adalah dari Pentadbir Tanah Raub, bukan dari JUPEM. Ben Boleh saya dapatkan jawapan ya atau tidak, adakah anda mempunyai surat kuasa dari Ketua Pengarah Ukur untuk menandatangani sijil pengesahan ini? Fakhri Tidak. [13] Penilaian kepada keterangan tersebut dan juga dokumen di muka surat 87 itu jelas menunjukkan bahawa dokumen tersebut disahkan oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil adalah setelah disemak dengan dokumen yang terdapat di Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan. Ia bukannya dokumen yang disediakan oleh pihak Defendan. [14] Adalah tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa Akta Pelan Dan Dokumen Tanah Dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980) menghendaki bahawa dokumen yang termasuk dalam tafsiran Akta tersebut memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “"dokumen" ertinya- (a) dokumen hak milik berdaftar, dokumen hak milik keluaran atau pajakan, sebagaimana ditakrifkan dalam setiap hal dalam Kanun Tanah Negara [Akta No. 56 tahun 1965]; S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (b) apa-apa lesen, permit, notis, perjanjian atau dokumen lain berkaitan dengan tanah yang diberi, dikeluarkan atau dimasuki oleh atau bagi pihak Raja atau Yang Dipertua Negeri bagi sesuatu Negeri; atau (c) pajakan atau pajakan kecil lombong, pajakan sementara lombong atau perakuan melombong diberi atau dikeluarkan di bawah mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang ditentukan dalam Jadual.” [15] Ia termasuk dokumen dalam muka surat 87 iaitu pelan tanah bertarikh 26.05.1921 adalah terikat dengan seksyen 3 Akta Pelan Dan Dokumen Tanah Dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980). Begitu juga ia boleh dijadikan sebagai keterangan yang boleh diterima di mahkamah seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 4 Akta tersebut yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “4 Pelan dan salinan fotograf boleh diterima dalam keterangan Tiap-tiap pelan yang dikeluarkan secara fotografi mengenai mana-mana tanah atau salinan pelan atau dokumen yang dibuat dengan sewajarnya dan diakui menurut peruntukan seksyen 3 dan dilampirkan kepada mana-mana dokumen atau diserahkan kepada mana-mana orang sebagaimana yang dikehendaki oleh, dan bagi maksud, mana-mana S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 undang-undang bertulis berkaitan dengan tanah atau lombong di Semenanjung Malaysia adalah boleh diterima dalam keterangan tanpa pembuktian selanjutnya di semua mahkamah di Semenanjung Malaysia.” [16] Namun demikian dalam kes ini mahkamah berpendapat dokumen berkenaan adalah merupakan pengesahan daripada Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil setelah disemak dengan Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan dan bukannya pelan yang dibuat dalam konteks seksyen 3 Akta Pelan Dan Dokumen Tanah Dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980). [17] Oleh itu pelan tersebut adalah tertakluk kepada keterangan- keterangan lain bagi menunjukkan keesahan dokumen tersebut dan terletak kepada pihak Plaintif untuk menunjukkan bahawa dokumen- dokumen tersebut adalah bukannya suatu dokumen yang sah. Ini adalah disebabkan pelan tersebut tidak dikemukakan seperti kehendak seksyen 3 Akta tersebut maka ia tidak boleh dijadikan keterangan dalam kes ini. Walau bagaimanapun mahkamah ini berpendapat ia tidak boleh dihalang daripada dimasukkan sebagai maklumat di dalam Borang B1 Jadual 14 Kanun Tanah Negara bagi geran mukim dalam Borang 5DK bagi tanah yang dipertikaikan ini. [18] Dalam kes ini mahkamah mendapati bahawa kekeliruan yang timbul ialah apabila terdapat di pelan tanah yang dikepilkan dalam Borang B1 yang dikepilkan bersama-sama Geran Mukim tersebut S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 terdapat perakuan yang dibuat oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil bagi pihak Pentadbir Tanah Raub yang menyatakan seperti berikut: Adalah diakui mengikut Seksyen 3 Akta Pelan dan Dokumen Tanah dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Semakan 1980), bahawa ini ialah salinan pelan yang betul lagi benar yang telah dibuat pada 26.05.1921 bagi lot 5804 di dalam Mukim Gali, Daerah Raub, Pahang seperti ditunjukkan di atas pelan PA 26533. Skala TANPA SKALA PETA KADASTER 715-C MUHAMMAD FAKHRI BIN ABD JALIL b/p PENTADBIR TANAH RAUB [19] Ia seolah-olah menunjukkan bahawa pelan tersebut dikeluarkan seperti kehendak seksyen 3 Akta Pelan dan Dokumen Tanah dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Semakan 1980). Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil juga mengesahkan bahawa beliau tidak diberi kuasa untuk menandatangani pengesahan tersebut. Namun begitu mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil yang mengesahkan bahawa tandatangan beliau tersebut dilakukan setelah beliau membuat semakan dengan geran yang dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan. Ini bermakna ia hanyalah merupakan pengesahan berkenaan dengan butiran yang telah diperiksa oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil. Ia lebih sesuai dilihat dalam konteks S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 seksyen 74 Akta Keterangan 1950 iaitu dokumen awam yang mana ia boleh disahkan di bawah seksyen 76 Akta keterangan 1950. Seksyen 74 Akta Keterangan 1950 menyatakan seperti berikut: “74 Public documents The following documents are public documents: (a) documents forming the acts or records of the acts of- (i) the sovereign authority; (ii) official bodies and tribunals; and (iii) public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether Federal or State or of any other part of the Commonwealth or of a foreign country; and (b) public records kept in Malaysia of private documents.” [20] Seksyen 76 Akta Keterangan 1950 menyatakan seperti berikut: “76 Certified copies of public documents Every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate, written at the foot of the copy, that it is a true copy of the document or part thereof, as the case S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 may be, and the certificate shall be dated and subscribed by the officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed whenever the officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and the copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation - Any officer who by the ordinary course of official duty is authorized to deliver the copies shall be deemed to have the custody of the documents within the meaning of this section.” [21] Tatacara bagaimana suatu dokumen awam itu boleh disahkan telah dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Yusof bin Omar v Pendakwa Raya [2001] 2 MLJ 209 seperti berikut: “Dalam Bahasa Melayu, kedua-dua perkataan 'mengesahkan' dan 'memperakukan' boleh digunakan, dan digunakan dengan makna yang sama. Demikian juga 'betul' dan 'benar'. Apa yang dikehendaki oleh s 76 Akta tersebut ialah bahawa salinan itu adalah satu salinan yang disahkan atau diakui benar atau betul. Itu sahaja. Ia tidak menghendaki dibuat satu 'sijil' lain untuk mengesah atau memperakui kebenarannya atau bahawa ia betul. Jauh sekali ia menghendaki adanya satu 'sijil' yang berbentuk satu dokumen lain. Kerana seksyen itu sendiri dengan jelas menggunakan perkataan-perkataan '… a certificate, written at the foot of the copy …'. Ertinya S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 pengesahan itu hendaklah ditulis di bahagian bawah salinan itu, bukan pada satu dokumen lain. Kami juga dirujukkan kepada kes Noliana Bte Sulaiman v PP [2000] 4 MLJ 725. Dalam kes itu, disamping terdapat persoalan-persoalan lain yang berkait dengan peruntukan s 76 Akta tersebut dalam kes itu, perkataan yang digunakan ialah 'SALINAN DIAKUI SAH', manakala dalam kes ini 'SALINAN DISAHKAN BENAR'. Kami difahamkan bahawa rayuan terhadap penghakiman itu telah dibuat ke mahkamah ini dan belum didengar. Oleh itu, kami tidak mahu berkata sesuatu yang boleh disifatkan bahawa mahkamah ini telah pun memutuskan rayuan itu sebelum ianya didengar. Kami juga berpendapat bahawa kes-kes lain yang dirujuk seperti Mohamed Hanifah v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 83, di mana pengesahan salinan berkenaan tidak bertarikh, tidaklah perlu dibincang. Persoalan-persoalan dalam kes-kes itu berlainan. Kesimpulannya, kami memutuskan bahawa pengesahan nota-nota keterangan (P2) dalam kes ini, seperti yang dilakukan adalah memadai untuk mematuhi kehendak s 76 Akta tersebut. Satu hujah lagi yang dibangkitkan ialah bahawa pengesahan itu tidak mengatakan bahawa nota keterangan itu adalah S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 cuma sebahagian daripada nota keterangan dalam perbicaraan pertama. P2 adalah nota keterangan perayu dalam prosiding pencabaran itu. Ia bukanlah kesemua nota keterangan dalam keseluruhan perbicaraan pertama itu. Memang benar bahawa s 76 Akta tersebut mengandungi kata-kata 'or part thereof', ertinya atau sebahagian daripadanya. Maka soalannya ialah sama ada ketiadaan kata-kata itu pada pengesahan salinan itu menyebabkan ianya tidak boleh diterima sebagai keterangan. Kami berpendapat ia boleh diterima sebagai keterangan. Pertama, ketiadaan kata-kata itu tidak menjadikan apa yang terkandung dalam salinan itu tidak benar. Apa yang penting adalah kebenaran salinan itu. Malah semua peraturan yang disebut dalam s 76 Akta tersebut hanya mempunyai satu matlamat: untuk memastikan bahawa salinan yang dikemukakan adalah benar, bukan untuk menyusahkan atau kerana sebab-sebab lain. Kedua, pengesahan itu dibuat di bahagian bawah setiap muka surat salinan itu. Ia mengesahkan apa yang ada pada muka surat itu, bukan yang tidak ada. S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Ketiga, bahagian yang dikemukakan itulah yang berkenaan dengan perbicaraan kedua, bukan yang lain.” [22] Selain daripada itu penelitian keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Plaintif tidak dapat menunjukkan bahawa pelan di muka surat 87 tersebut dan dokumen-dokumen yang terdapat di muka surat 83 adalah sesuatu yang tidak teratur sehingga tidak boleh digunakan dalam dokumen yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak Defendan. Pengesahan yang dilakukan oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil bukannya dengan tujuan untuk digunakan sebagai keterangan di mahkamah ini bagi kes ini. Sebaliknya ia aalah dokumen yang disahkan oleh beliau setelah semakan dibuat dengan pelan yang dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan yang dimasukkan dalam suratan hakmilik yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan. Mahkamah ini berpendapat tindakan yang dilakukan oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil adalah dalam urusan rasmi dia sebagai pegawai awam. [23] Dalam hal ini mahkamah juga merujuk kepada seksyen 114 (e) Akta Keterangan 1950 yang memperuntukkan bahawa sebarang perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh pegawai awam hendaklah dianggap sebagai tepat dan betul melainkan sebaliknya. Seksyen 114 (e) Akta Keterangan 1950 menyatakan seperti berikut: “114 Court may presume existence of certain fact “The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. (e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.” [24] Anggapan ini adalah berdasarkan kepada maksim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta (all acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done). Pemakaiannya dapat dilihat dalam kes Commissioners of The Municipality of Malacca v Sinniah [1974] 1 MLJ 77. Ia juga tidak terpakai sekiranya tindakan dilakukan itu bukannya termasuk dalam tugasan rasmi ataupun kehakiman. Ini dapat dilihat melalui keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Nurasmira Maulat bt Abd Jaffar & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara & Ors [2015] 3 MLJ 105 seperti berikut: “[10] In addition, the learned judge had failed to consider that the defendant stands as an ordinary litigant and is not entitled to the benefit of s 114(e) of the Evidence Act 1950 which relates to the presumption 'that judicial and official act have been regularly performed'. The killing of the deceased has nothing to do with judicial or official act. The court should have taken into consideration that all the main witness for the defence were interested witness and no independent witness was called though the incident took place in day light and public place, etc. Further, there was evidential short coming in the S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 case. The pleaded case of the defendant in respect of the gun was a different serial number and the gun produced in the court was another. This itself will be fatal to the defence case. There are many more short comings in the assessment of the evidence which need not be repeated as learned counsel for the plaintiffs have highlighted in the submission.” [25] Dalam kes ini perakuan yang dilakukan oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil itu sepatutnya tidak mengikut seperti yang dinyatakan di perenggan [18] di atas sebaliknya dicatatkan antara lain seperti berikut: “Salinan ini diakui sah atau salinan ini disahkan benar.” [26] Jika ini dilakukan ia dapat mengelakkan kekeliruan yang timbul berkenaan dengan pelan tersebut sama ada ianya adalah disahkan oleh Pengarah Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan atau hanya sekadar semakan yang dibuat oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil dan mengesahkan ia adalah teratur dan bukanya dikeluarkan oleh Encik Muhammad Fakhri bin Abd Jalil yang sudah tentu ia bercanggah dengan seksyen 3 Akta Pelan Dan Dokumen Tanah Dan Lombong (Salinan Fotograf) 1950 (Disemak 1980). Walau bagaimanapun dalam konteks kes ini mahkamah berpendapat ia tidak menjejaskan dokumen atau pelan yang disertakan bersama-sama dengan suratan hakmilik tersebut bagi mewajarkan mahkamah ini mengenepikan keesahan suratan hakmilik dan pelan yang dilampirkan bersama-sama ini. S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Isu (b) Pembetulan kesilapan oleh Pentadbir Tanah [27] Peguam Persekutuan menyatakan bahawa ekoran daripada aduan daripada Encik Kow Tuck Hoong yang terdapat di muka surat 100 satu penyiasatan telah dijalankan oleh Penolong Pegawai Tanah Pejabat Tanah Raub pada 19.08.2021 dan Borang 2B di bawah seksyen 15 Kanun Tanah Negara dikeluarkan kepada kedua-dua Plaintif untuk mengemukakan dokumen surat tersebut bertarikh 20.01.2021 di halaman 98 Ikatan Dokumen A. [28] Ekoran daripada penyiasatan tersebut hakmilik kekal telah dikeluarkan dan diberikan hakmilik kepada pihak-pihak sewajarnya. Seksyen 380 Kanun Tanah Negara memperuntukkan seperti berkut: “380 Correction of errors in documents of title, etc. (1) Where the Registrar is satisfied— (a) that any document of title has been registered or issued in the wrong name, or contains any misdescription of land or boundaries, or other error or omission; or (b) that any memorial or other entry has been made in error on any document of title or other instrument relating to land; or S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 (c) that any memorial or other entry made on any such document of title or instrument itself contains any error or omission, he may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), make such correction on the document or interest in question as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (2) The State Director may if he thinks fit direct that, in such cases or class or classes of case as may be specified in the direction, the powers conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercisable in respect of land held under Land Office title, or the corresponding form of qualified title, except with his prior approval. (3) The said powers shall not without his prior approval be exercised so as to affect any plan prepared by or on behalf of the Director of Survey and Mapping, except in cases where he has taken action under section 396A. (4) The Registrar shall maintain for the purposes of this section a book, to be called the "Correction Note-book", in which he shall record details of all corrections made by him thereunder.” S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [29] Pada hemat mahkamah peruntukan sedemikian adalah bertujuan untuk membolehkan mana-mana kesilapan yang dilakukan oleh pihak Pentadbir Tanah diperbetulkan. Ia adalah bagi mengelakkan sebarang kesilapan berterusan berlaku dan salah satu daripada cara untuk mendapatkan pengesahan maka Pentadbir Tanah memerlukan dokumen-dokumen daripada pemilik tanah yang sedang memegang dokumen hakmilik yang membolehkan ianya dikemukakan atas arahan Pejabat Tanah di bawah seksyen 15 Kanun Tanah Negara. [30] Dalam konteks ini mahkamah perlu melihat adakah pemakaian seksyen 380 Kanun Tanah Negara tersebut sesuai dalam keadaan seperti kes ini. Dalam hal ini mahkamah merujuk kepada buku bertajuk Tenure and Land Dealings in the Malay States oleh David S.Y. Wong Singapore University Press 1975 di halaman 144 seperti berikut: “Mistakes in a grant may also arise with respect to the quantum of the ownership thereby disposed of by the State. For example, a grant in perpetuity may by mistake be effected instead of a term of years. As a general rule, such a grant should become unimpeachable when it passes into the hands of a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration. As to whether the State can impeach it as against the alienee, the question has to be considered with regard to the circumstances in which the mistake is made. It hardly needs to be said that it may, for example, be a case of fraud, misrepresentation or one of mutual mistake. If the mistake be merely unilateral on the part of the State, it may perhaps still S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 be regarded as one which may be corrected by the Registrar under section 380.” [31] Mahkamah ini mengambil panduan daripada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan berkenaan hakikat seksyen 380 Kanun Tanah Negara serta hubungkaitnya dengan prinsip ketidaksangkalan hakmilik. Ini dinyatakan dalam kes Hassan Seman & Ors v. Jusoh Awang Kechik [1982] CLJ Rep 110 seperti berikut: “In the National Land Code indefeasibility and correction of error are two independent provisions existing side by side. Each has its own sphere and scope of operation. The provision for correction of an error can never be a violation of the indefeasibility principle. The only care the Registrar of Title or the Court making an order for correction should take is to determine that the mistake is a mere error and that it does not cease to be so and does not become something else. In the present case we are satisfied, just as the District Officer was, that the memorial made on the register of title was an error and not something else. In the circumstances we consider it a proper case to order its correction.” [32] Mahkamah juga melihat bagaimana pembetulan itu dilakukan oleh mahkamah dalam memperbetulkan kesilapan dalam Borang 16A dengan mengarahkan pendaftar untuk membetulkannya, Malaysia Building Society Bhd v. KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd [2017] 4 CLJ 24. S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [33] Penilaian kepada keterangan saksi-saksi dan dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan adalah didapati bahawa terdapat keraguan Plaintif terhadap Defendan dalam tindakan memperbetulkan hakmilik dan pelan yang dikemukakan tersebut. Ia hanyalah berdasarkan kepada perbezaan yang dibuat berkenaan dengan pelan asal dan pelan terkini yang disyaki terdapat kemungkinan berlaku pemalsuan ataupun tindakan tidak jujur dalam pengeluaran hakmilik tersebut. Mahkamah juga mendapati keterangan bahawa terdapat inkuiri dilakukan sehingga menyebabkan keputusan pendaftar untuk membuat pindaan yang sewajarnya. [34] Dalam konteks ini adalah mustahak untuk mahkamah membuat keputusan berdasarkan kepada keterangan-keterangan dan bukannya sangkaan (suspicion) semata-mata. Plaintif adalah berkewajipan untuk mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan bagi membuktikan kesnya terhadap Defendan. Ia tidak mencukupi sekadar sangkaan bahawa terdapat penyelewengan atau frod yang dilakukan oleh pihak Defendan. Dalam hal ini mahkamah merujuk kepada Sarkar Law of Evidence Malaysian Edition 2016 Vol. 1 di muka surat 127 yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “Suspicion though a ground for scrutiny of evidence cannot be made the foundation of a judicial decision. A judge is not justified in deciding a case upon his own suspicions or upon mere suppositions after discarding the S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 evidence produced by the parties or when there is no evidence to support a finding.” [35] Ini adalah merupakan asas utama dalam satu tuntutan Plaintif kepada Defendan iaitu mengemukakan keterangan bagi dipertimbangkan oleh mahkamah untuk membenarkan tuntutan pihak Plaintif atau sebaliknya. Dalam hal ini mahkamah berpendapat pihak Plaintif tidak dapat membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap pihak Defendan. [36] Akhirnya tuntutan pihak Plaintif adalah ditolak dengan kos. Bertarikh: 13hb. Disember 2023 (ROSLAN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Plaintif-Plaintif Tan Ben Lee Tetuan AimanLooi & Ben Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan Bagi Pihak Defendan Umira binti Mohd Noor Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur S/N d8JNM9mGka2u7qCBsshw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AA-42JSKH-3-01/2023

PERAYU MASRI BIN MUSA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

Appeal on Sentencing - test for an appeal against a sentence must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. Sentencing - court should prioritize public interest, deterrence, rehabilitation, and tailor punishment to each case and the criminal - High Court only revises lower court sentences if they are inadequate, excessive, illegal, or improperly based on the facts or law, not just due to differing views - court typically avoids interfering trial court sentences unless strongly justified, focusing on logical and realistic considerations, such as the appellant's life expectancy against the sentence length.

13/12/2023

YA Tuan Moses Susayan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3999649a-3f1c-4022-b6e2-8aa98c4b7bfe&Inline=true

GOJ Masri bin Musa V PP (FINAL).pdf 1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH 5 IN THE STATE OF PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-2-01/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-3-01/2023 10 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-2-01/2022 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-3-01/2022 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-4-01/2022 15 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-5-01/2022) BETWEEN MASRI BIN MUSA 20 (NRIC. NO: 731101-08-5541) ... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT 25 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1]. This case came up on an appeal from the Sessions Court Teluk Intan, only on sentencing. This court has heard the appeal and delivered its 30 decision on 6 October 2023. The Appellant/Accused not being satisfied with the decision instructed the prison authority to appeal on 13/12/2023 09:52:18 AA-42JSKH-3-01/2023 Kand. 26 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 the decision to reduce on the sentencing. Hence, my grounds for the said decision. 35 Background Facts [2]. The Appellant/Accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on 7 charges under three (3) different cases. They are as follows: (charges are cited in the original text):- 40 1st Case No. :(AC-62JSK-2-01/2022) 1st Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN NOVEMBER 45 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 3.00 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS (50 name and National Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH 55 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment from the date of arrest on 25 June 2021 and (1) 60 stroke of caning. 2nd Charge HUJUNG BULAN NOVEMBER 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAH MALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR 65 PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect 70 her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 75 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning and the sentence to run consecutively. 3rd Charge 80 AWAL BULAN DISEMBER 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAH MALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK 85 TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( name and National Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN 90 KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning. 95 2nd Case No.: (AC-62JSK-3-01/2022) 4th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN MEI 2017 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 4 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA 100 DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( al Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her 105 identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 110 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning and the sentence to run consecutively after case AC-62JSK-2-01/2022. 3rd Case No.: (AC-62JSK-4-01/2022) 115 5th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN MEI 2017 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 4 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH 120 HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN SUMBANG MAHRAM DENGAN (vict Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity). YANG MANA OLEH KERANA PERHUBUNGAN KAMU DENGANNYA ADALAH TIDAK DIBENARKAN DI BAWAH UNDANG-125 UNDANG, HUKUM AGAMA YANG TERPAKAI KEPADA KAMU UNTUK BERKAHWIN DENGANNYA. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH 130 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 12 years imprisonment and Six (6) strokes of caning and the sentence to run separately from the case AC-62JSK-2-01/2022 and AC- 62JSK-3-01/2022. 135 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 4th Case No.: (AC-62JSK-5-01/2022) 6th Charge 3 MEI 2018 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH 140 KURANG 12.00 TENGAHMALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR KEDUA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL DENGAN CARA MENYENTUH KEMALUAN 145 ( deliberately deleted to protect her identity). OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) ATAS KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAK- KANAK 2017 DAN DIBACA BERSAMA SEKSYEN 16(1) AKTA YANG 150 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and 1 stroke of caning. Additionally, under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offenses Against Children Act 2017, 1 year 155 imprisonment and 2 strokes of caning. There is also a provision for 1 year of supervision under Section 14(a) of the same Act and mandatory counselling while in prison. The sentence of imprisonment is to run separately from the cases AC-62JSK-2- 01/2022 and AC-62JSK-3-01/2022. 160 7th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN SEPTEMBER 2018 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAHMALAM S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 165 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL DENGAN CARA MENYENTUH KEMALUAN ( Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity). OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG 170 BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) ATAS KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAK-KANAK 2017 DAN DIBACA Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years 175 imprisonment and 1 stroke of caning. Additionally, under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offenses Against Children Act 2017, 1 year imprisonment and 2 strokes of caning. There is also a provision for 1 year of supervision under Section 14(a) of the same Act and mandatory counselling while in prison. The sentence of 180 imprisonment is to run separately from the cases AC-62JSK-2- 01/2022, AC-62JSK-3-01/2022, and 62JSK-4-01/2022. Trial [3]. A total of eight (8) witnesses were called by the Prosecution at the 185 prosecution stage and upon defence being called only the Appellant/ Accused gave evidence on oath and was cross-examined. Based on the testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibits presented, the Sessions Court Judge decided at the end of the defence case that the Prosecution has successfully proved their case beyond reasonable 190 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 doubt and convicted the Appellant/ accused on all the 7 charges as stated above. [4]. The Appellant/accused is dissatisfied with the decision of the Sessions Court Judge and hereby appeals to this Honourable Court 195 on the sentence. Appeal to High Court [5]. The Appellant/accused is challenging the sentence on plainly 3 grounds: 200 a. That it is 'manifestly excessive.' The total years of Imprisonment imposed is 32 years, distributed as follows: 9 years for the 1st case (AC-62JSK-2-01/2022), 3 years for the 2nd case (AC- 62JSK-3-01/2022), 12 years for the 3rd case (AC-62JSK-4- 01/2022), and 8 years for the 4th case (AC-62JSK-5-01/2022). 205 Further the Appellant/ accused is sentenced to 12 strokes of caning, with 3 strokes for the 1st case, 1 stroke for the 2nd case, 6 strokes for the 3rd case, and 2 strokes for the 4th case. b. The Appellant/Accused's counsel argues that the Appellant/ 210 Accused faced 7 counts in total, but the charge in the 3rd case is based on the same act as the 2nd case, but was charged under different provisions of the law that is under Section 354 and Section 376B of the Penal Code. The two (2) offences were clearly part of the same transaction as they were 215 committed on the same date, time and place i.e. it refers to the same act. The rationale for the one-transaction rule is that S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 consecutive sentences are not appropriate. Therefore, the Appellant/Accused submits that the lower court judge erred in meting out the sentence in the 3rd and 2nd cases to run 220 consecutively. c. The Appellant/Accused's counsel refers to Exhibit P12, which mentions a perineal examination by Dr. Sharifah Raihan bt Syed Kamaruddin (SP7) on 25 June 2016 at 10.40 am, predating the 225 incidents in the charges. Thus, the Appellant/Accused argues that the lower court's sentence is grossly excessively due to the lack of perineal examination findings or medical evidence related to the alleged incidents on the specified dates. The "25 June 2016" date on P12 appears to be a typographical error; however, 230 this issue was not brought up by the Appellant/Accused in the lower court, either during the trial or in submissions. This line of argument, considered an afterthought and lacking merit, typically pertains to acquittal, whereas the current appeal is solely focused on the sentence. 235 The Law on Appeal against Sentence [6]. The test for an appeal against a sentence is that the Appellant/ Accused must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles. This is 240 outlined in the case of Adam Atan v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 33: In an appeal against sentence, the initial function of this court is one of review only. The fact that each of us sitting separately or together would have imposed a lesser sentence is irrelevant. The S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 appellant must satisfy this court that the sentencing court has 245 either erred in principle or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. [7]. In the oft-quoted case of Kenneth John Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164, which is referenced among others in Public Prosecutor v. Sulaiman 250 Ahmad [1992] 3 CLJ Rep 447; [1992] 4 CLJ 2283; [1993] 1 MLJ 74, it is a well-established legal principle that an appellate court usually does not intervene in a sentence that has been judiciously determined by a lower court, provided the sentence adheres to the correct legal principles. An exception to this rule occurs when the sentence is either 255 manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, or if it does not comply with the law. This is what Hilbery J commented in Kenneth John Ball (supra): sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public 260 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 265 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 270 living. Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the court to decide what is, within that maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 in regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the court has 275 [8]. The case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 MLJ 83, also establishes principles on sentencing, emphasizing the need to balance public interest and the offender's interests: 280 For a discretionary judgment of this kind to be reversed by this court, it must be shown to our satisfaction that the learned judge was embarking on some unauthorised or extraneous or irrelevant exercise of discretion. We are far from convinced that any criticism 285 of the learned judge is warranted. He took the course he did, in outweighing the plea of mitigation in favour of the public interest with a desire to uphold the dignity and authority of the law as administered in this country. We agree. That must receive the greatest weight. It is a serious offence to give false testimony, for 290 it is in the public interest that the search for truth should, in general and always, be unfettered. The courts are the guardians of the public interest (see the Exclusive Brethren case [1980] 3 All ER (underlined is my emphasis) 295 [9]. Also, in the case of Public Prosecutor V Govindnan A/L Chinden Nair [1998] 2 MLJ 181, Augustine Paul J emphasized that when passing a sentence, the primary considerations must include public interest. He clarified that public interest represents justice not only for 300 the Accused but also for society at large. His Lordship said: S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 be one of the prime considerations (see PP v Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 186). A major element of public interest is that justice means justice not only to the accused but also justice 305 to society. Accordingly, in passing sentence, a court has to consider not only the offence and the offender, but also the interests of society. The court acts as a vehicle to show 310 [10]. Having said that, the High Court typically refrains from interfering with a sentence when exercising its revisionary powers, unless it finds the lower court's sentence to be clearly inadequate, excessively harsh, unlawful, or inappropriate considering all presented facts or those that the court is expected to judicially notice. This suggests that for the High 315 Court to intervene in the sentencing, the lower court must have significantly misapplied the correct sentencing principles. It is a firmly established practice that the High Court does not change a sentence merely because it might have chosen a different sentence. This principle was clearly stated by Hashim Yeop Sani J in Public 320 Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 with the following words: normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence of the lower court is either manifestly inadequate or grossly 325 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 court 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 330 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 practice that the court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have [11]. As such the criteria under which an appellate court may revise a lower court's sentencing decision, as established in the Court of Appeal case 335 of PP v. Ling Leh Hoe [2015] 4 CLJ 869, is summarised are as follows: a. The sentencing judge made an incorrect decision regarding the factual basis for the sentence. 340 b. The trial judge erred in understanding the material facts presented. c. The sentence was fundamentally flawed in its principles. 345 d. The sentence was either manifestly excessive or insufficient. [12]. Having reviewed the law governing appeals on sentencing, I will now evaluate the sentence meted out on the Appellant/Accused by the lower court, in light of the aforementioned legal principles. 350 The sentence meted out against the Appellant/Accused [13]. The sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused falls within the legally permissible range with the prescribed limits for each charge. There was no violation of the maximum allowable sentence. The 355 judge's decision was consistent with legal provisions. Considering the S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 nature of the offense, a sexual offense perpetrated against one's own child is a heinous and morally reprehensible act. It represents a severe breach of trust and duty, inflicting deep psychological and emotional harm on the victim. Such actions not only violate the sanctity of the 360 parent-child relationship but also fundamentally undermine the child's sense of safety and well-being, often leading to long-lasting trauma. This form of abuse is particularly egregious due to the inherent expectation of protection and care that a parent is morally and legally obligated to provide to their child. Taking into account of all these, the 365 sentence meted out is both reasonable and not excessive. It is conceivable that had another judge presided over this case, either at the lower court or on appeal, the sentence might have been even more severe to uphold justice. 370 [14]. The Appellant/Accused did not enter a guilty plea to warrant a reduction in the sentence. Considering the Appellant/A conviction after a full trial for a serious offense, where the Prosecution called (8) eight witnesses, with defence being called, the punishment is appropriate. 375 [15]. Courts must balance the interests of the public and the Appellant/ Accused, prioritizing public interest, especially in light of the disturbing rise in incestuous sexual crimes. It is particularly egregious when offenders, such as the Appellant/Accused, betray the trust of those 380 they should protect, pursuing personal desires over their welfare. This betrayal is accentuated in cases where the offender, like the Appellant/Accused, is a stepfather, a role that inherently demands providing protection, yet in this instance, it has been subverted by committing a grave offence. 385 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [16]. In arriving at the decision by this court to uphold the sentence imposed by the lower court, this court referred to a passage from the case of Public Prosecutor v Sigol bin Singki [2022] 7 MLJ 1, which highlights the statistics of sexual offenses committed against children, especially by those in positions of trust, as mentioned in the "Rang 390 Undang-Undang Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak- Kanak 2017 emphasized that most offenses are committed by family members, often within the home, which complicates detection and reporting. This often results in delayed reporting, with cases sometimes remaining 395 unrecognized until serious consequences, such as pregnancy, arise. The amendment to Section 16 was enacted to strengthen penalties, increasing the maximum imprisonment term from 20 to 25 years, thereby reflecting the gravity of abuse of trust. This amendment highlights the public importance of protecting vulnerable victims and 400 enforcing stricter penalties against family offenders. The passage referred to is as follows: trust to sexually assault the child victim. This fact could be gathered 405 from what w -Undang Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak- (see Rahman bin Mohamad (Lipis) when debating on the Bill stated that in the 10 years alone, the sexual offenders against children involved 410 biological fathers (23.9%), step-fathers (23%), uncles (18.7%), biological brothers (12.5%), cousins (7.2%), brother-in-laws (5.3%), step-brothers (4%), grandfathers (1.6%) and step-grandfathers (1%). 415 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [18] The said minister was further recorded to have stated - kenalan itu sendiri, maknanya ahli keluarga itu sendiri. Oleh sebab itu bila saya mendengar hujahan daripada rakan-rakan sebentar tadi untuk menarik perhatian bahawa kita kena memainkan peranan di 420 sekeliling keadaan persekitaran kita, jiran-jiran kita, kita kena melihat apakah keadaan sebenar jiran-jiran kita itu. Akan tetapi perkara yang berlaku ini adalah disebabkan berlaku di dalam rumah itu sendiri. Kadang-kadang mereka tinggal di rumah kampung atau rumah bandar itu sendiri yang jaraknya jauh daripada orang ramai. 425 Bagaimana kita nak melihat perkara ini berlaku, sebab dia berlaku dalam rumah dia. Kalau sebagai seorang yang kita katakan tadi mahram dia sendiri dia lakukan perkara itu. Bagaimana kita nak mengesan setelah dia melakukan perkara tersebut, maka sudah pastilah dia juga melakukan ugutan terhadap mangsa itu sendiri. Jadi 430 kita mengharapkan supaya apa yang berlaku ini, kita hendaklah akui bahawa kanak-kanak ini sering terdedah dalam keadaan bahaya di kalangan anggota ahli keluarganya sendiri yang kita boleh anggap sebagai musang berbulu ayam ataupun haruan makan anak itu sendiri. 435 Dalam konteks penderaan kepada kanak-kanak ini, kebanyakan kes penderaan seksual terhadap kanak-kanak ini laporan biasanya lambat dibuat sebab yang saya katakan adalah disebabkan kena ugutan daripada ahli keluarga sendiri. Kadang-kadang kita sedar sehingga kanak-kanak ini telah mengandung, baru kita sedar ada 440 perubahan berlaku pada kanak-kanak ini barulah kita mengambil keputusan untuk membuat laporan polis. Kadang-kadang kita tidak membuat laporan polis kerana kita memikirkan ini adalah ahli keluarga kita sendiri melakukan. Kalau bapa dia sendiri atau bapa tirinya atau sebagainya, dia 445 menganggapkan bahawa satu mata pencarian akan hilang kalau S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 mereka melakukan laporan tersebut. Maka inilah yang hendak kita bayangi dengan perubahan daripada akta-akta ini maka mungkin juga kita boleh serba sedikit mencegah daripada perkara yang berlaku itu, sebagaimana yang saya katakan lebih berbelas ribu kes 450 [19] In this respect, it must be noted that while section 14 already provides for imprisonment term of not exceeding 20 years, when read with section 16, the imprisonment term is increased to not exceeding 455 25 years. This clearly indicates that Parliament recognised the vulnerability of victims to persons who are in relationship of trust with them. Respectfully, it would be contrary to public interest to not give effect to the provision when dealing with cases of such nature. 460 [17]. In reaching this decision, the court is also mindful not to submit entirely to public interest or to excessively punish the Appellant/Accused, such as by ensuring they never see the light of day outside of prison, due to the seriousness of the offense committed. In Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik v. PP [2009] 4 CLJ 638, His Lordship Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he 465 then was) in considering the issue of public interest, where the appellant pleaded guilty to the Sessions Court to 5 offences of rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code and where the victim was his stepdaughter who was below the age of 16 years at the time of the rape incidents. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 470 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan for each and every offence. In total, sentence to serve was 75 years in jail and to receive 50 strokes of the rotan. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the term and to receive the maximum rotan of 24 strokes. In allowing the 475 appeal, His Lordship said this : S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 e High Court order as we refused to submit to public opinion; public opinion is like the sword of Damocles that hover over the head of any trial judge, constantly intimidating the court to surrender to the 480 [18]. At paragraph 24, of the same case (Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik (supra)) His Lordship criticised the impracticality of sentencing a 48-year-old man to 75 years, surpassing average life expectancy and straining 485 logic, warning that such irrational sentences could invite public scrutiny and tarnish judicial credibility. This is what His Lordship said: An appellate court will not be overly ready to interfere with any sentence imposed by the trial court unless there are very good 490 reasons to do so. For purposes of this case, suffice if we merely peruse the sentences meted down, subsequently to be affirmed by the High Court, from the point of view of logic. It is statistically accepted that the average life span of a Malaysian man is 70 years whilst that of a Malaysian woman 75 years. In time the average 495 life span will increase. That being so, with the appellant now 48 years old, on average he has 22 years of good life left. To impose a sentence that will take him until the age of 123 years old, and knowing fully well that he never will serve the full term, not only is bizarre but strains the intelligence of the court. Any illogical 500 sentence may attract unnecessary scrutiny and negative comments from the public on how we awkwardly conduct 505 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Conclusion [19]. Based on the above, and being mindful of the words of His Lordship Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he then was), who compared public opinion to the 'sword of Damocles' hanging over trial judges as a 510 constant threat, implying that judges feel pressured or intimidated by public opinion to yield to the public's unreasonable demands', and considering the principle of law relating to sentencing in the long- standing case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake (supra) as stated by Raja Azlan Shah LP (later His Majesty YDPA) that judges, influenced 515 by human nature and individual perspectives, may reach different conclusions in similar cases, leading to varying sentences. As such the appellate court typically refrains from interfering unless there is a compelling reason, despite potential sentence disparities. This is what His Lordship said: 520 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, 549). It is for that reason that some very conscientious judges have thought it their 525 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 530 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. 535 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [20]. Accordingly, since this court found no significant error in the lower court's decision and sentencing, except for a minor error which was considered, the appeal is allowed partially. Specifically, we allow the sentences in cases AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 and AA-42JSKH-3- 01/2023 to run concurrently, while upholding the lower court's 540 sentencing for the other offenses. Consequently, the total years of imprisonment imposed by the lower court remain unchanged as the net effect of this court's order. 545 Date: 11 December 2023 Moses Susayan 550 MOSES SUSAYAN Judicial Commissioner High Court in Malaya 555 at Ipoh, Perak 560 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Counsel: 565 For Appellant/Accused : Azwan bin Abdul Wahab Advocates and Solicitors Omar Azwan & Partners Ampang, Selangor 570 For Respondent : Geetha Jora Singh Deputy Public Prosecutor Prosecution Unit Perak Legal Advisor Offices 575 (Notice: This Grounds of Judgment is subject to further editing) 580 Headnotes Appeal on Sentencing - test for an appeal against a sentence must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a 585 sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. Sentencing - court should prioritize public interest, deterrence, rehabilitation, and tailor punishment to each case and the criminal - 590 High Court only revises lower court sentences if they are inadequate, excessive, illegal, or improperly based on the facts or law, not just due to differing views - court typically avoids interfering trial court sentences unless strongly justified, focusing on 595 S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 logical and realistic considerations, such as the appellant's life expectancy against the sentence length. S/N mmSZORw/IkC24oqpjEt7/g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

W-01(A)-561-09/2021

PERAYU Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri RESPONDEN ABTP MARKETING SDN BHD

Appeal from SCIT and HC - Whether R&D expenses capital in nature? - Whether penalty provision correctly invoked?

13/12/2023

YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruKorumYA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruYA Dato' Hashim Bin HamzahYA Dato' Lim Chong Fong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=973efe2a-3f46-492e-b78d-fb03b38c9c01&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(A)-561-09/2021 ANTARA KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI … PERAYU DAN ABTP MARKETING SDN. BHD. ... RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas) Rayuan Sivil No. WA-14-53-12/2020 Antara Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri ... Perayu Dan ABTP Marketing Sdn. Bhd. ... Responden dan Antara ABTP Marketing Sdn. Bhd. ... Perayu Dan Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri ... Responden 13/12/2023 08:39:07 W-01(A)-561-09/2021 Kand. 20 S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dalam Perkara Pesuruhjaya Khas Cukai Pendapatan Rayuan No. PKCP(R) 102/2016; 103/2016; 104/2016 Antara ABTP Marketing Sdn. Bhd ... Perayu Dan Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri ... Responden] KORAM: RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU, HMR HASHIM BIN HAMZAH, HMR LIM CHONG FONG, HMR GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court that dismissed the appeal of the Director General of Inland Revenue (the Revenue) and at the same time allowed the appeal of the taxpayer, i.e. ABTP Marketing Sdn Bhd (ABTP). Both appeals before the High Court were from the deciding order of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (the SCIT) in respect of ABTP’s appeal against additional assessment. S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Background facts [2] The basic undisputed facts extracted from the judgment of the High Court and the grounds of decision of the SCIT are as follows. [3] ABTP was appointed as the marketing channel for anti-bacterial triple-layer polymer water pipes for another company, namely ME-Plas (M) Sdn Bhd (ME-Plas). The issues before the SCIT and High Court centred on the claims for deductions by ABTP for the Years of Assessment (YA) 2010, 2011 and 2012. [4] The complex business relationship between ABTP and ME-Plas worked this way. ABTP purchased two PVC mixing machines and placed them in ME-Plas’s premises. ABTP purchased raw materials from a third party for the manufacture of the anti-bacterial compounds. It then supplied the said raw materials to ME-Plas which mixed the same into anti-bacterial triple polymer compounds for ABTP. ME-Plas charged ABTP for mixing the compounds through debit notes. ME-Plas then purchased the compounds from ABTP and manufactured the anti-bacterial polymer pipes (also known as “AB-3P pipes”). ABTP as the marketing channel company purchased the said pipes from ME-Plas. [5] The arrangement between the parties contained the following stipulations as reflected in the Authorisation Letter signed by both parties. (i) ABTP shall achieve a minimum of 2,000 tons of the AB-3P pipes purchase orders per year. (ii) If ABTP fails to make a minimum order of 2000 tons per year/1000 tons per every 6 months, ABTP will be charged by S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 ME-Plas, a factory original equipment manufacturer (OEM) surcharge on the difference (the OEM surcharge). [6] Arising from the above arrangement, ABTP made a number of claims for deduction for YA 2010, YA 2011 and YA 2012. After an audit made in 2014, the Revenue raised additional assessment for the same years in respect of the said claims. The Revenue also imposed a penalty under section 113(3) of the Income Tax Act. ABTP appealed to the SCIT. The appeal was partially allowed. [7] The claims for deduction decided by the SCIT and the High Court involved the following issues: (a) Whether the claim for deduction of the OEM surcharge via two debit notes of RM544,150.00 and RM255,845.79 can be allowed; (b) Whether the Research and Development (R&D) expenditure of RM226,651.55 for the YA 2011 and 2012 is an allowable deduction under section 34(7) of the ITA? (c) Whether the upkeep or repair and maintenance in the sum of RM100,000.00 in the areas of ME-Plas’s factory where the mixing machines owned by ABTP are placed is an allowable deduction; (d) Whether the commission and interest of RM660,904.84 for YA 2912, RM151,435.37 for YA 2011 and RM25,849.75 for YA 2010 are allowable deductions. These items include (i)commission paid for purchase of raw materials including bankers’ acceptance commission, (ii) interest incurred on S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 money borrowed, (iii) director’s remuneration, (iv) labour charges and (v) sales commission; (e) Whether the capital allowance and hire purchase interest for the machinery owned by ABTP that was placed in ME-Plas’s factory in the sum of RM353,521.00 for YA 2010, 2011 and 2012 can be deducted; (f) Whether penalty was correctly imposed on ABTP for making an incorrect return under section 113(2) of the Income Tax Act 1967. Decision of SCIT [8] The SCIT did not allow the deduction for the OEM surcharge and maintenance of the factory. They allowed the deduction for the R & D expenditure and capital allowance and hire purchase interest for the machinery owned by ABTP. The SCIT did not allow deduction for commission paid for raw materials and banker’s commission. The other expenses were all allowed and found to be deductible. As the appeal was only partially successful, the SCIT upheld the decision to impose penalty under section 113(1) of the ITA. Decision of High Court [9] The learned High Court Judge allowed the appeal of ABTP and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue which means that all the expenses were held to be deductible. The decision of the Revenue to impose the section 113(2) penalty was also set aside by the High Court. S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Our decision [10] Briefly stated, the reasons of the High Court for allowing the five claims for deduction are as follows. [11] In respect of the OEM surcharge, the main argument of the Revenue which was accepted by the SCIT was that it was a penalty and therefore it was not a deductible expense. The learned High Court judge pointed out that none of the contractual documents in this case state that the OEM surcharge was a penalty. In other words it is a reasonable compensation pursuant to the contract. [12] We are in complete agreement with Her Ladyship’s reasoning. The OEM surcharge is not mandatorily payable; it is only payable if the purchase orders fall below a certain limit. As Her Ladyship said, the purpose is to cover the costs of producing the pipes. Thus, it was wholly incurred in generating revenue. The House Lords case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Limited Company [1915] AC 79 cited by the learned High Court Judge is on point. The House of Lords said as follows in that case in considering whether an expense is a penalty: (a) It will be held to be penalty if the sum stipulated for its extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, (Illustration given by Lords Halsbury in Clydebank Case. (3) (b) It will be held to be penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid (Kemble v Farrent (4))..... S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (c) There is a presumption (but no more) that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage" (Lord Watson in Lord Elphinstone v Monkland Iron and Coal Co. (6) On the other hand: (d) It is no obstacle to the sum stipulated being a genuine pre-estimate of damage, that the consequences of the breach are such as to make precise pre-estimation almost an impossibility. On the contrary, that is just the situation when it is probable that pre-estimated damage was true bargain between the parties." As pointed out by the learned High Court Judge, none of the conditions stated in the Dunlop case are present in the instant case for the OEM surcharge to be considered a penalty. [13] In respect of the R & D expenditure, which included raw material purchases and costs of travel to South Korea, the Revenue’s argument to support its case that it is not claimable is two-fold. The trip to South Korea was undertaken by ME-Plas on behalf of ABTP. Firstly, it was argued that the ABTP is trading company and that it is not in the business of manufacturing the AB-3P compounds. The mixing is done by ME-Plas and therefore the expenditure belonged to it and not to ABTP. The alternative argument was that since the ABTP claimed that the intellectual property in the compounds that belonged to it, the expenditure in question is capital in nature and therefore not deductible under section 33(1) of the ITA. S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [14] The learned High Court Judge agreed with the SCIT that the business of ABTP cannot be restricted to trading only. The SCIT made a finding of fact that ABTP had expanded its business beyond trading and had entered into an agreement with ME-Plas for the latter to carry out R & D activities on its behalf for the purpose of producing the anti-bacterial compounds. We agree with the learned High Court Judge and the SCIT that a taxpayer cannot be restricted in its business to generate revenue. In the instant case, ABTP and ME-Plas had entered into a particular arrangement whereby the former which is primarily a trading company nonetheless had decided to own the anti-bacterial compounds produced by the latter in its factory. As we said earlier, the compounds were sold to ME-Plas by ABTP. Therefore, as the learned High Court Judge noted, the R & D expenditure in question cannot be claimed by ME-Plas as a deductible expense in the production of its income. Rather, it was incurred in the production of the income of ABTP as found by SCIT and the High Court. [15] Thus, the only relevant question is whether the R & D expenditure is “an outgoing and expense” that was wholly and exclusively incurred in the relevant taxable period for the production of income as stipulated under section 33(1) and at the same time not caught as a capital expense under section 39(1)(c) of the ITA. Section 39(1)(c) of the ITA reads as follows: 39. Deductions not allowed (1) Subject to any express provision of this Act, in ascertaining the adjusted income of any person from any source for the basis period for a year of assessment no deduction from the ross income from that source for that period shall be allowed in respect of— S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (c) any capital withdrawn or any sum employed or intended to be employed as capital; [16] In Syarikat Jasa Bumi (Woods) Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2000] 2 MLJ 317 that was cited by counsel for the appellant, the Court of Appeal said as follows: In our view, for a taxpayer to qualify for deduction of any payment or expenditure incurred by him he must first of all place the payment or expenditure as allowable under s 33 of the Act. He has to justify that the payment or the expenditure incurred by him is an allowable deduction under s 33 of the Act. In the present appeal it is sub-s (1) of that section. If the payment or expenditure is not allowed under s 33(1) of the Act then it would not be allowed as a deduction. On the other hand, if it is allowed as a deduction under s 33(1) of the Act, one has to proceed to the next step to ascertain whether the payment is caught under s 39(1) of the Act. If it is caught under s 39(1) of the Act, then it would not be allowed as a deduction though it is allowable under s 33(1) of the Act. [17] In order to answer the question whether the claim is a capital expenditure, it is necessary to delve into the nature of the R & D expenditure. Counsel for appellant submitted that one of the tests to determine whether an expenditure is capital or revenue is the “enduring benefit” test laid down in British Insulated and Helsby Cables, Ltd v Atherton [1926] AC 205, where the House of Lords said as follows: But when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital. For this view there is already considerable authority. Thus, moneys expended by a brewing firm with a view to the acquisition of new licensed premises: Southwell v. Savill S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Brothers(1); "flitting expenses" incurred in transferring a manufacturing business to new premises: Granite Supply Association v. Kitton(2); costs incurred in promoting a Bill which was dropped on the desired facilities being obtained by agreement: A. G. Moore & Co. v. Hare(3); and expenditure incurred by a shipbuilding firm in deepening a channel and creating a deep water berth (not on their own property) to enable vessels constructed by them to put out to sea: Ounsworth v. Vickers, Ld.(4), have been held to be in the nature of capital expenditure and not to be deductible under the Income Tax Acts; and Rowntree & Co. v. Curtis(5) is to the same effect. I think that the principle to be deduced from this series of authorities rests on sound foundations and may properly be adopted by this House. [18] Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant case, the purpose of the trip to South Korea was to obtain the “formula or know- how” to make the anti-bacterial compounds. Therefore, it is an expenditure made with a view to bring into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of ABTP’s trade. We find merit in this argument. Counsel for the respondent had incidentally also submitted that the purpose of the R & D trip to South Korea was to obtain the formula to manufacture the anti-bacterial compound locally. Previously, it was manufactured in South Korea. This fact was also noted by the SCIT when they said as follows: 10.13 AW2 juga ada memberikan keterangan mengenai perjalanan yang beliau lakukan ke Korea untuk berunding dengan syarikat Korea bagi mendapatkan formula pembuatan AB-3P compound bagi membantu penyelidikan yang dijalankan oleh syarikat ME-Plas Sdn. Bhd. AW2 juga memberikan keterangan mengenai penambahbaikan yang dibuat oleh syarikat ME-Plas Sdn. Bhd. Hasil daripada penyelidikan yang dijalankan. 10.14 AW2 juga ada memberikan keterangan bahawa tujuan penyelidikan dijalankan adalah supaya bahan asad pembuatan AB-3P paip iaitu S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 AB-3P compound yang sebelum ini diperolehi daripada syarikat pengeluar di Korea dihasilkan sendiri di dalam Malaysia dan ini dapat mengurangkan kos pembelian bahan asas tersebut daripada syarikat pengeluar Korea. [19] Therefore, as submitted by counsel for the appellant, the advantage obtained by ABTP in the R & D expenditure has permanency and enduring benefit for its business. Therefore, whilst we accept that ABTP has a right to expand its business and get involved in the production of the anti-bacterial compound by using the factory belonging to ME-Plas, the point about the capital nature of the R & D expenditure was not properly dealt with by both the SCIT and the High Court. This is a matter of law which we can interfere with. We shall therefore vary this part of the decision of the SCIT and the High Court and hold that the R & D expense was caught by section 39(1)(c) as it was substantially a capital expenditure. [20] In respect of the expense of RM100,000.00 to maintain ME-Plas’s factory where the anti-bacterial compounds were mixed on behalf of ABTP, it is a fact that the machinery belonged to ABTP. The Revenue again contended that the business of the ABTP was only marketing the pipes and therefore it cannot claim for the maintenance of the factory where the machines were installed. The SCIT had no issue with the fact that the machines were owned by ABTP. In fact, the SCIT said when considering the R & D issue that ABTP cannot be restricted to only marketing the completed anti-bacterial pipes as contended by the Revenue. The only reason, the claim of RM100,000.00 was not allowed was because the maintenance invoice for the said sum was not produced. S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [21] We agree with the learned High Court Judge that section 33(1)(c) of the ITA does not say that a taxpayer must own the premises in order to deduct maintenance expense. It is undisputed that the machines were owned by ABTP and that they were used in the production of its income, i.e. the compound used by ME-Plas to manufacture the anti-bacterial pipes. Although the maintenance invoice was not tendered, ABTP tendered evidence through AW1 and AW2 that maintenance expenses were paid by one of its directors personally and the payments were recorded in its books as “an amount owing to the Director”. ABTP had also assumed the contractual obligation to maintain the machines as noted by the learned High Court Judge. We therefore affirm the decision of the learned High Court Judge who held that machinery maintenance expenses comes under section 33(1) of the ITA as expenses incurred in producing income. [22] We shall now consider whether commission and interest payment incurred for purchase of raw materials and other payments incurred by ABTP are deductible. The payments were in respect of the following: (a) Commission paid for purchase of raw materials including Banker’s acceptance commission in the sum of RM465,243/00; (b) Interest of 5 per cent incurred on money borrowed; (c) Director’s remuneration; (d) Labour charges and; (e) Sales commission. S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [23] At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the appellant conceded the claim for director’s remuneration and labour charges. Thus, only the three remaining items were disputed. [24] ABTP claimed the commission paid to its raw material suppliers as an expense under section 33(1). The raw materials were for the purpose of producing the anti-bacterial compound. The raw materials suppliers charged ABTP commission for this reason. ABTP used the credit facility of the raw material suppliers to make the purchase. The learned High Court Judge held that it was a deductible expense because it can be equated with interest charged by commercial banks. Her Ladyship cited section 33(1)(a) which enacts that interest expenses on money borrowed in the production of gross revenue is a deductible expenditure. She found that the commission paid for the use of the credit facility in question was limited to raw materials used in the production of income and did not involve assets of enduring value. [25] On the other hand, counsel for the appellant raised the argument that was accepted by the SCIT which is that there was no agreement or documents evidencing ABTP’s obligation to pay the commission. The relevant passage of the grounds of decision of the SCIT that was relied on by counsel for the appellant is as follows: 10.25 Berkenaan perbelanjaan komisyen pembelian bahan mentah kami mendapati tiada apa-apa perjanjian atau dokumen sokongan yang boleh menjelaskan komposisi komisyen tersebut. Adakah ia merupakan bayaran faedah bank atau merupakan bayaran komisyen atas penggunaan kemudahan pinjaman bank, tiada keterangan diberikan oleh Perayu. Tiada juga saksi dipanggil daripada pihak yang membenarkan kemudahan pinjaman bank mereka digunakan bagi menjelaskan komposisi komisyen tersebut. Oleh itu kami S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 memutuskan tidak selamat untuk kami membenarkan tuntutan perbelanjaan ini. [26] In our view, the learned High Court Judge correctly dismissed the above-mentioned argument of counsel for the appellant. Her Ladyship pointed out that the law does not require a written agreement between ABTP and the raw material supplier in the matter of determination of deductibility of an expense, i.e. the commission for use of the credit facility. The documents used in the transaction, such as the vouchers that were tendered before the SCIT, constituted proof of payment of the said commission. We see no error in this reasoning. After all, even the SCIT agreed that ABTP cannot be limited to marketing of the pipes but can venture into production of the anti-bacterial compound. Therefore, as ABTP had proved that it had paid the commission payment in question to the raw material suppliers for use of the latter’s credit facility, the expense clearly comes within section 33(1) to the ITA. We are also of the view that that argument of the counsel for appellant that ABTP has its own bank facilities is not relevant. There is nothing in the ITA that prevents a tax payer from making financing arrangements other than using its existing banking facilities. [27] The learned High Court Judge also found that the 5 per cent interest on the loan given to ABTP by one Liew Teng Shuen to purchase raw materials was a deductible expense. The SCIT also allowed the interest payment as it was stated on the payment invoices. We are of the view that both the learned High Court Judge and the SCIT correctly found that as the interest payment was incurred in the process of purchasing of raw material to generate revenue, it was not a capital expenditure. The only argument canvassed by counsel for the appellant was that there was S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 no finding by the SCIT in respect of the purpose of the loan. However, reading the grounds of decision of the SCIT as a whole, it is clear that the tribunal approached the loan as the source of funding for purchase of raw materials. That was the case of ABTP as well before the SCIT. This is the reason the High Court found that the loan was for the purpose of generating revenue as it relates to the costs of goods sold and that it did not add to the capital structure of ABTP. We shall therefore affirm the decisions of the SCIT and the High Court that found that the 5 per cent interest on the loan was a deductible expense. [28] The second last issue on expenses is the issue of sales commission. The SCIT found that commission of RM90,034.00 was paid to Kho Lip Khiong for the sale of the AB-3P pipes was for the production of income and was therefore a deductible expense. The sales commission of 5 per cent was documented on the sales invoices. The SCIT found that this fact constituted sufficient proof of payment. Counsel for the appellant argued that the deductibility of an expense does not depend on the existence of an invoice but on the purpose of the payment. However, it is clear from the grounds of decision of the SCIT that the payment of 5 per cent was commission paid to Koh Lip Khiong for sales of the AB-3P pipes. We shall therefore affirm the decisions of the SCIT and the High Court in respect of the said sales commission. [29] The final issue on deductibility of expenses that was raised before the SCIT and considered by the High Court was the capital allowances in respect of the machines in question owned by ABTP that were installed in the premises of ME-Plas and the hire purchase interest paid for purchase of the same. Both the SCIT and the High Court found for the taxpayer. The argument of the Revenue was the same argument that was raised in S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 respect the maintenance and repair of the machines. It was submitted that the machines were not used by ABTP as they were located in the premise of ME-Plas. We agree with the High Court that the expenses are deductible for the same reasons that we addressed earlier. The machines were owned by ABTP and the machines were used to produce the anti- bacterial compound for ABTP’s business. Penalty [30] With regard to penalty, we affirm the decision of the Revenue to impose a penalty of RM226,654.00 in respect of the incorrect return pertaining to the R & D expenditure that we found not to be deductible. Conclusion [31] In conclusion, the appeal is allowed in part. We shall vary the decision of the High Court in respect of the R & D expense and the penalty imposed under section 113 of the ITA in respect of the same as stated earlier. The rest of the decision of the High Court is affirmed. No order as to costs. SGD (RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Putrajaya Dated: 22nd August 2023 S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Parties Appearing: For The Appellant: Mohamad Hafidz Bin Ahmad Syazana Safiah Binti Rozman (Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN), Cyberjaya) For The Respondent: Donovan Cheah Lim Zi-Han [Messrs Donovan & Ho] S/N Kv4l0Y/Lkm3jfsDs4ycAQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22IP-62-12/2018

PLAINTIF EMERICO SDN BHD DEFENDAN MAXVIGO SOLUTION SDN BHD

Application (“the Committal Application) for committal proceedings under Order 52 of the Rules of Court, 2012 (“the Rules”) against the Defendant and its two directors, for alleged contempt of a post-judgment discovery order - application dismissed.

13/12/2023

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6e59c67f-4879-4196-a101-773caf502267&Inline=true

13/12/2023 09:18:38 WA-22IP-62-12/2018 Kand. 159 S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N f8ZZbnlIlkGhAXc8r1AiZw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—22IP—E2—12/2018 Kand. 159 13/12/2023 news-324 IN ms HIGH com“ or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR VI; sun no ypzzlpfiz 12 my BETWEEN EMERICO sou arm PLAINTIFF AND MAXVIGO sownou sou nun DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT |APPucAT|oN son commrmq lnlroduclinn 1 The P\amM's appneauan m Endosuve 125 (-me commmau Appllcahonl m ws aclvnn was «or oommmal pmoeadmgs under Ordor 52 07 an Rum 01 Conn. 2012 me Rules“) agamst lhe De¢em:am and us two dxreclors, rm auaged contempt 01 a post- |udgmen| discovery nrdev sau-m Iucknvourld hell 2. The P\amufl‘s nalum :11 bustnass rs “to carry on any or an of lhe business 0/ supply software development‘ mamlensncs, and use of computer sallwnrs, syslems, and networks‘ and “I0 carry on an of any 0/‘ vi: busmes: of supyly salfwars, hardware and sakwars hcensmg '1: \s registered as |he owner 0! was uuhly mnuvahnns, Page 1 .4 an aw vazznnmksnAxaarwzw -ma Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm one owner. rs um-cy Inmvenen Nu Mv—1sasosA Mppllcalinn No Ul 2017000733) bemg a pmneawe sreeva (or an a|ac1mm:: device (“the Puemms ur) on 2312 2019, me Hamhff brough| (ms swan aga|ns| nne Delendanl lcr -ntnngemem 0! me P\a|nmTs UL afleging that a producl unau me Defendant was (rading in (‘ma Inmngmg Product") infringed ma Plain|iWs Ul on 21.2 2020 after a mu ms: Ims Court gave ludgment Var ma PIamlvf1l“lhe Judgment’) Thu (arms 07 me Judgmam \nduded' ‘An mm as 10 uamsm or at me r-/mm man, an amowl of prams and an amp! Invpaymnm o/an sums mu upon me mamng or sum new wlakmv orsum amun: Iapellvsr wvm Interest memnn as man tale 5: ma Hmauralve Conn deems m ' on a5,1o.2a2o, me F\amW commenced assessment of damages proneedmgs under order 31 of me Rules rune assessment pmneed\ngs') and on 24122020 filed ms alfid:-MI m suppan cnamung what u cafled ‘pvovIs\una\ costs and damages“ of RM2B‘KJ99,3Q2 00 runs Plaxnllifs Damages Amdawr‘). ms was m spite of me Plamlill acknowiedgmg m mac same amaavu ma: me Defendant had yet In mscmse us tradmg acllvlly nu ma Vnfnnging Proauuana me moome derived cnereirom. In replytu that amdavn, on 10.2.2021 Tan Lxm Keal, me Detendanrs cmer Technobgy Offioer (“Tan’), affirmed an affidavil |‘Tan's 15- Amdavw) contending, mlsl a/Ia use 2 L1! no srNvaz2nnuu<snAxaar1A1w “Nair am.‘ n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 m my a. anmnmy mm: dun-mm VII mum v-mm (I) Tha| Ihe uetendanrs only zmshmer my me xnmngmg Producl was Ambink (M) Bhd (“Ambank"). (u) Tha| as invames m Amhank for (he Inn-mgmg Product amounlad to a lolal ol RM2‘B7B‘000.0I7: and mai lhe nelenaam vaoea dlffimlly in wxlhdrawrng nv recalling the Vnfinglng Product lrom Ambank 7. The wamm men pm the assessment procaedmgs on new and an 21.52021 appllad cor poslqudgmenl discovery (or ducumenls lurwards an Ieeaun| ul pmffls (‘past-judgment dnsoovary appx.camen'). To veplymal applicalmn, Tan zmrmad another amdam [‘Tan's 2"“ Affidavif] prafly much Iupazlmg whal he had said m Tan‘: 1' Affidavvl 8 Thm Cour! flawed Ihal pusl-judgment dnswvcry appllcallon, Ind me msuhmg ovder made on 23,: 2022 (‘ms Dlsnovery Omen’) was mama Ds1endan|wou\d disclose M7 the mamxm me lollowmg mus set out Lampiran A to ma posl-juflgmenl discovery appncu an 41; Parvyafapevueta bank De/endan unluk hast! yang drptmlullr alums! danpada pingrmpovmn, pangeksportan pembualan. pervgedaran. penyualan penawsmn unnlk ,ua»an acau penggunzan ssbavflflfl Fruduk Lanmaran Delgndan‘ 42; Kuamnn ulman dukurmn mm yang Aelalv mmamaam .1." posanun-pasarlnrv mm will Dc/andln dun mm pumbtkal, pelengqam mmmnor din/Itau max my mama» hm-usuk rnwtswvozs Besanan-Dessnan panghamaan ma»/mu /EDWEM P mm m mzznnu\ksnAxaar1A1w "‘ mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! pavkmdmalarl borsama dungan penyalmanyala bank rung mel-lawmlrlkan Demblsyamrl yang wan fltmnma alau dlouat mane pwrloekakpembekal nelsngganoelanggnn, subkuvllrakrob suhkanlraklm Defendarl darl/atau plnakvmak yang Delkaflarl asngan Produk Langgarsrl Dela/rd-ll. 43; Pcnyalwonym perldapafarl Iurplmlcl Dniundsrl (yang lnlan alaumu dart Iahlm 2w sshlrlggs kml, darl 4» Akalm Derlgurussll Duiandarll Dakl llvlbangan awe, Fe/ar am‘ lejar Deflflhulang /e)aI pemhekul, rakorlsl/last om, penyalarasan lmmk uh-up mu (shun den dakunlen saknngavl lumasuk penyaIa- psnyula bank,Duucar~blu£5VPONlD1l/Bran dan sllpulpnsmsman unluk (shun 2m 7 Illrlggl km) 9 Endorsed on the Dlscovary Order was the penal notice under man as lull 7 Mlho Rulu addressed la the Defendant In lhe dlrarflms cl me Dclendanl. Ng Boon Hang |“Ng") and Hadzlr Bin Salah (“Ha¢zlr‘) (collectively, “the Duiarldznfs DIrecIors') glvlrlg them nollee at passlbla oanlnlmal proceedings ll they am not wmply wllll me Discovery Order 10. By ms ccmlnlllal Aupllcsllan, lhe Flamhff Y5 emmlally ssaklng a fine agalnsl lhe uelend-nl lav oonlslrlpl mm: Dlscuueryordar, wlln ole Dlmam In be mdersd . Iy and severally liable |o pay lhi!| fine. As agairlsl ma clors, me Plalnllll u sceklng In order In uommll them lo prlson lo: conlenlpl of me Dlscavery Omar, win. nu ma suugm ln me allemaflvs. van 4 .l ID sm VBZZhnlHkGhAXnlr1Al1w “Nair Smnl mmhnrwlu .. l... M my l... nflmnnllly ml. mm. VII .nunc Wm! 11 12. I allowed Enclosure 125 only kn me exIen| 01 finding Ihal |he Dslanushr was m oarrrarrrpr nl rhe nrsorwery Order ind Impasmg a rrha of Rmzmo an ah n, wi|h the anahaanr war that the Dnveciors be mtrlfly and aaverauy name re pay char aha lorand uh behalluf me uavarraarrr. I are rrha me Drraaors ro be m oonhampl ullhe Drsooverv order, There am rwo mam raasarra 1urIha\ eeursrerr Frracry. even lhnugh Ng aha Hadzvrare listed rh rrra records at rhs cnrrrparrres Commlsskm of Maxaysra as me diveclurs of me Defendant, rr appsaraa ru me from His cause papers arru lmm their personal arrahaarrcas before me In com dunng the course of me proceedings an the cerrrrnural Aapncarrorr that it was really Tan who was as (auto rrr charge arm In ovarau ounducl 01 me Derarraarrrs busmass, Oval (hay were no| mvoived m n and wars wholly clueless as re :15 lradmg aenmres ms was swash: [mm and suppoflsd by the veuuwrrrg (rp Tan had nesmaa for me Delendanl at me full |nul at me achun, whereas harrrrer Ng nnr Hadzlr were wrrrrasses a\ the mm. In iacr, may were rmravarr Inslad m the nelerruanrs Inst of wlmassasr ‘rah had aurmred Tarfs 1* Affidavn and Tan‘s 2"’ Amdavrr In lnose posHna\ pruceedlngsl had mermoned aamer, and nellhev Ng nor Hadxrr had. In neither onhoae Amaavirs did Tan say anything aboul Ng nor Hadzw anrrer, ms s nl 10 am razznrr\HkshAxaar1Arzw “Nana Sum nunhnrwm rs. LAIQ4 w my r... nflmhnflly mm: dnuumrrl VII mum war (In) Frum ma umema Dehndanl entered an appearanoelotms aclianon 91 2019 up unmarouna ma lmddle auune 2:123. lhe nevendam had been represented by Snlicwmrs In lacl. by nnraa amananc firms aumae dmerenmmss. Yhefirsl was replaced by ma second by: Nofis Fenukslan Pegusmcala filed under omru ml: 1 anho Rum. and ma second and third appned |o dwcharge memselves under cm: 54 ml: 5 mm Rului. In their respeclive amuavus m supparl av [hose apphc-a|ions‘ ma depenems had snnuany aapoaaa to ma eflech mfsr alra, lha| ma firm was appamled by Tan‘ thal ms firm had in an Irmes received Inslrucliuns vmm Tan‘ that me firm naa been was to behave |ha( Tan was Delenflanfs owner, mac lhay had never mel ma puaaors. (hut may had oeased to r9oaweins|mc11uns1rcm Tan; and mm mm were aulslanding vaas and charges «or men! aamaaa my Ng and Hadzir only began |o appear vn Ouun cor ma pvaoeedings on me commmaw Application, and me «wo affidavns may jointly-afhmled agams( El referred to and rerler-med wnax Tan naa aam m Tan‘: 1* Amdavin and Tana 2"” Affidavn: and [V) Their dsmaanour Il'| ma cocaslens man may appeared belcre me -n person Vn com, unrepresented sxmbn a anal tank 01 knomedge of ma Delandanfs busmass aclwmas, and may could nmanswer basic quasunns lha com: posed to Ihem about n. mama am mzznnmksnAxaarwzw «ma sanaw n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 a may he nrW\nnU|:I am. dun-mm VII mum Wm! 13 14. 15. Secondly‘ tn thett lwo Amdavtts eppostng the cetnnttttat Aupllcaliant apart tram mtlefilrrtg what Tan had said tn Tan‘s 15' Afidavtl and Tan‘: 2"” Amttavtt, the Dlreclms furtherallaged that the Detendants accounts had never been audtled since VI was tnoorporaled. There ts, tn fact‘ nu eeuntering or wntraetehng evidence that they ever had been Then, tn the P ' ttrs Audtttonat Ameavtt amnned on 25.9.2023‘ the Ptatntihs adduced the netendanrs bank statements wtth CIMB Bank aerhad tor Item January 2017 lo 31.: 2D23[‘1he Detenaanrs ctma 5lBlBmen|S’)t whtch tt was able to procula hum CIMS Bank en its own sfions. Fmm the Detenuants CIMB statements, the Plaintth wasabteta ptnnotnt naytnents that the Detendartt had recewed lmm Ambank, whtch the Ptainmv atteged and suspecled was evtdanoe 01 the actuat sale and supply at the Intrtngtng Product by the Delendant |a Amhank. and not as Tan tend in tum. the Dtveclnrs) had eamer aHeged by amdauit. In my view. the evidence hunt the Ptatntnra Damages Amaautt together wtth the netendants CIME statements, and the abaenee at any wtdence to eonbauiet or |ravarse Tan‘: and the DI'tac1ot's‘ avemtents that tt ta nnly with Ambartlt that the Detenaant lraded the tnhtttgtng Pmducl and that the Detenuanrs accounts have never been audfled, eoueettvety mean that the awdenoe that the 5-tahttttt sought tn Latnptren A of the Dtseevety omet has to a tatge ex1artI alrendy been ebtattted. Or tn the Wells!‘ the Plainllfl has not speemeu or Dmpotnled any ulhav at tunher euteenue lhn| tt womd need |o etthet pmceed with the tnqutry as te damages or. II the Phttnttvrs ,en at;caun|olpn1filstas envtsagee by the Jwdgmenl Page In! ID am raZZhrt\HkGMXaartAtzw «mt. a.h.t tuvthnrwm e. u... e mm t... bflmhaflly sun. dnuumnt n. muhc Wm! 16 17 Cansequenfly, VI Irre above clrcumsianoes whlle II may oenalrlly be anpmprlate Ior a nne to be imposed on Ina Delendanl ler nal bslng Inrlnoonnng wiln Ine Inlonnallon requlred uylne Dlsoovery order, I find man no rlndlng ol oonlemm onne Dlscovery Drdev should be made egarnsl me Dimmers. cenalnly, there was no basis or Iusllficahorl Io make any order wmmilllng ellher ol |he Dlreclors to nrlson even lllhere was oonlernol by Inem or me Dlsoovery Order. And In one Communal Aun|ica|IurI, as Ine I>IaInIIII dld nol seek fines agalrlsl Inem W allernalive, il was ellhsr oornrnmal or nnlrung. For oomnlelerlesss I also meal the Plamme submlsslcn Inal lha dlscleparlcles belween wnal Tan and me Dlraclms deposed to WI IhelVA'fidaVlIs as Io Ins sum the Delerrdenl reoewed lmrn Amhank and me amounls dlsclosed In Ine nelendanrs cIMa S|aIemerIIs should we-gn IV‘ on lhls comvs declsinrl an Ihe oomrnmel Appllcallon. order 52 r.: of III! Rum expressly requ-res me slalemenl In sunporl at me applncazlon lor leave Io make such app|Ica|IorI Io slale "me grounds on wnrcn his cornnmal Is sought”. These alleged dlserenancles were not one of Inose grvunds Ordor Is. Tne Order I therefore make on me oornmlml Appllcallorl is as Iollows (I) That Ina Delendanl, Ma ga sulumons sdn Ehd‘ be Imposed wllh : nneolRM2.ooa.oolor being in contempt at me Dlsoovery order, »...;aua sm raZZnnlHkGMXaEr1AIzw «nu. s.n.I I-vlhnrwlll r. u... m may he nflfllnnllly mm: dun-mm VII mune WM! (II) (iii) (iv) (V) The! Ng soon Hang (NRIC No 711028-1|?-5607) and Hadzir Ein Salah |NRlC No: 570114-U2-5447), as in: Defendarifs direc|0rS, be pmiiy and ssveraiiy iiauie |a pay than fine on the Dcienaanrs henaiv. Thai in daiauli oi payment of that fine oi RM2,000 00, N9 Ewen Hang (NRIC No‘ 711025405607) and Hldzir Em Saieh (NRIC No 5701140275447) he oommilled to pnsun for seven (7) days. Triai |he oammmai Apphcalicn agamai Mg Boon Hang (NRIC Nu 711023-IO-5607) and Hadz n Saleh (NRIC Nu 570114-02-5447; personally be dismissed mm rm order as to aosis. Thal the ueienaam be ordered to pay to the maimiams sum oi Rmaoiocuoo as cns|s «or (he Commillal Apphcahon uaiea me 14'“ day 0! November 2023 ua Lumpur Hlgh Cnun Pan 5 :71 no sin YlZZhn\HkGhAXzEr1Ai1w -ma s.n.i n-vihnrwm be used m mm .. mimiiuy MIN: dun-mm VII arium mm Counial: Alex Choc Wsn Chm! (Messrs Lch /van 3 Lee Hm) for me Plavnlrfl Ng Boon Hang and Hadxv Em Salsh m person L-gmnlan: omev37, 45 Me 7, 52, 52 mls 3, 64 (M21 and 64 rule 5 Rules arcoun 2012 91:: in m an sw vazznnu\kGnAxzar1A1w -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023

PERAYU MASRI BIN MUSA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

Appeal on Sentencing - test for an appeal against a sentence must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. Sentencing - court should prioritize public interest, deterrence, rehabilitation, and tailor punishment to each case and the criminal - High Court only revises lower court sentences if they are inadequate, excessive, illegal, or improperly based on the facts or law, not just due to differing views - court typically avoids interfering trial court sentences unless strongly justified, focusing on logical and realistic considerations, such as the appellant's life expectancy against the sentence length.

13/12/2023

YA Tuan Moses Susayan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=61edfeb4-7e12-455c-a7cf-02ca2ff621a1&Inline=true

GOJ Masri bin Musa V PP (FINAL).pdf 1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH 5 IN THE STATE OF PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-2-01/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-3-01/2023 10 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-2-01/2022 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-3-01/2022 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-4-01/2022 15 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-5-01/2022) BETWEEN MASRI BIN MUSA 20 (NRIC. NO: 731101-08-5541) ... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT 25 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1]. This case came up on an appeal from the Sessions Court Teluk Intan, only on sentencing. This court has heard the appeal and delivered its 30 decision on 6 October 2023. The Appellant/Accused not being satisfied with the decision instructed the prison authority to appeal on 13/12/2023 09:43:24 AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 Kand. 29 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 the decision to reduce on the sentencing. Hence, my grounds for the said decision. 35 Background Facts [2]. The Appellant/Accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on 7 charges under three (3) different cases. They are as follows: (charges are cited in the original text):- 40 1st Case No. :(AC-62JSK-2-01/2022) 1st Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN NOVEMBER 45 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 3.00 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS (50 name and National Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH 55 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment from the date of arrest on 25 June 2021 and (1) 60 stroke of caning. 2nd Charge HUJUNG BULAN NOVEMBER 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAH MALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR 65 PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect 70 her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 75 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning and the sentence to run consecutively. 3rd Charge 80 AWAL BULAN DISEMBER 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAH MALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK 85 TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( name and National Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN 90 KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning. 95 2nd Case No.: (AC-62JSK-3-01/2022) 4th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN MEI 2017 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 4 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA 100 DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( al Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her 105 identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 110 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning and the sentence to run consecutively after case AC-62JSK-2-01/2022. 3rd Case No.: (AC-62JSK-4-01/2022) 115 5th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN MEI 2017 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 4 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH 120 HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN SUMBANG MAHRAM DENGAN (vict Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity). YANG MANA OLEH KERANA PERHUBUNGAN KAMU DENGANNYA ADALAH TIDAK DIBENARKAN DI BAWAH UNDANG-125 UNDANG, HUKUM AGAMA YANG TERPAKAI KEPADA KAMU UNTUK BERKAHWIN DENGANNYA. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH 130 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 12 years imprisonment and Six (6) strokes of caning and the sentence to run separately from the case AC-62JSK-2-01/2022 and AC- 62JSK-3-01/2022. 135 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 4th Case No.: (AC-62JSK-5-01/2022) 6th Charge 3 MEI 2018 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH 140 KURANG 12.00 TENGAHMALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR KEDUA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL DENGAN CARA MENYENTUH KEMALUAN 145 ( deliberately deleted to protect her identity). OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) ATAS KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAK- KANAK 2017 DAN DIBACA BERSAMA SEKSYEN 16(1) AKTA YANG 150 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and 1 stroke of caning. Additionally, under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offenses Against Children Act 2017, 1 year 155 imprisonment and 2 strokes of caning. There is also a provision for 1 year of supervision under Section 14(a) of the same Act and mandatory counselling while in prison. The sentence of imprisonment is to run separately from the cases AC-62JSK-2- 01/2022 and AC-62JSK-3-01/2022. 160 7th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN SEPTEMBER 2018 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAHMALAM S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 165 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL DENGAN CARA MENYENTUH KEMALUAN ( Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity). OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG 170 BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) ATAS KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAK-KANAK 2017 DAN DIBACA Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years 175 imprisonment and 1 stroke of caning. Additionally, under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offenses Against Children Act 2017, 1 year imprisonment and 2 strokes of caning. There is also a provision for 1 year of supervision under Section 14(a) of the same Act and mandatory counselling while in prison. The sentence of 180 imprisonment is to run separately from the cases AC-62JSK-2- 01/2022, AC-62JSK-3-01/2022, and 62JSK-4-01/2022. Trial [3]. A total of eight (8) witnesses were called by the Prosecution at the 185 prosecution stage and upon defence being called only the Appellant/ Accused gave evidence on oath and was cross-examined. Based on the testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibits presented, the Sessions Court Judge decided at the end of the defence case that the Prosecution has successfully proved their case beyond reasonable 190 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 doubt and convicted the Appellant/ accused on all the 7 charges as stated above. [4]. The Appellant/accused is dissatisfied with the decision of the Sessions Court Judge and hereby appeals to this Honourable Court 195 on the sentence. Appeal to High Court [5]. The Appellant/accused is challenging the sentence on plainly 3 grounds: 200 a. That it is 'manifestly excessive.' The total years of Imprisonment imposed is 32 years, distributed as follows: 9 years for the 1st case (AC-62JSK-2-01/2022), 3 years for the 2nd case (AC- 62JSK-3-01/2022), 12 years for the 3rd case (AC-62JSK-4- 01/2022), and 8 years for the 4th case (AC-62JSK-5-01/2022). 205 Further the Appellant/ accused is sentenced to 12 strokes of caning, with 3 strokes for the 1st case, 1 stroke for the 2nd case, 6 strokes for the 3rd case, and 2 strokes for the 4th case. b. The Appellant/Accused's counsel argues that the Appellant/ 210 Accused faced 7 counts in total, but the charge in the 3rd case is based on the same act as the 2nd case, but was charged under different provisions of the law that is under Section 354 and Section 376B of the Penal Code. The two (2) offences were clearly part of the same transaction as they were 215 committed on the same date, time and place i.e. it refers to the same act. The rationale for the one-transaction rule is that S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 consecutive sentences are not appropriate. Therefore, the Appellant/Accused submits that the lower court judge erred in meting out the sentence in the 3rd and 2nd cases to run 220 consecutively. c. The Appellant/Accused's counsel refers to Exhibit P12, which mentions a perineal examination by Dr. Sharifah Raihan bt Syed Kamaruddin (SP7) on 25 June 2016 at 10.40 am, predating the 225 incidents in the charges. Thus, the Appellant/Accused argues that the lower court's sentence is grossly excessively due to the lack of perineal examination findings or medical evidence related to the alleged incidents on the specified dates. The "25 June 2016" date on P12 appears to be a typographical error; however, 230 this issue was not brought up by the Appellant/Accused in the lower court, either during the trial or in submissions. This line of argument, considered an afterthought and lacking merit, typically pertains to acquittal, whereas the current appeal is solely focused on the sentence. 235 The Law on Appeal against Sentence [6]. The test for an appeal against a sentence is that the Appellant/ Accused must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles. This is 240 outlined in the case of Adam Atan v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 33: In an appeal against sentence, the initial function of this court is one of review only. The fact that each of us sitting separately or together would have imposed a lesser sentence is irrelevant. The S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 appellant must satisfy this court that the sentencing court has 245 either erred in principle or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. [7]. In the oft-quoted case of Kenneth John Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164, which is referenced among others in Public Prosecutor v. Sulaiman 250 Ahmad [1992] 3 CLJ Rep 447; [1992] 4 CLJ 2283; [1993] 1 MLJ 74, it is a well-established legal principle that an appellate court usually does not intervene in a sentence that has been judiciously determined by a lower court, provided the sentence adheres to the correct legal principles. An exception to this rule occurs when the sentence is either 255 manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, or if it does not comply with the law. This is what Hilbery J commented in Kenneth John Ball (supra): sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public 260 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 265 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 270 living. Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the court to decide what is, within that maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 in regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the court has 275 [8]. The case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 MLJ 83, also establishes principles on sentencing, emphasizing the need to balance public interest and the offender's interests: 280 For a discretionary judgment of this kind to be reversed by this court, it must be shown to our satisfaction that the learned judge was embarking on some unauthorised or extraneous or irrelevant exercise of discretion. We are far from convinced that any criticism 285 of the learned judge is warranted. He took the course he did, in outweighing the plea of mitigation in favour of the public interest with a desire to uphold the dignity and authority of the law as administered in this country. We agree. That must receive the greatest weight. It is a serious offence to give false testimony, for 290 it is in the public interest that the search for truth should, in general and always, be unfettered. The courts are the guardians of the public interest (see the Exclusive Brethren case [1980] 3 All ER (underlined is my emphasis) 295 [9]. Also, in the case of Public Prosecutor V Govindnan A/L Chinden Nair [1998] 2 MLJ 181, Augustine Paul J emphasized that when passing a sentence, the primary considerations must include public interest. He clarified that public interest represents justice not only for 300 the Accused but also for society at large. His Lordship said: S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 be one of the prime considerations (see PP v Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 186). A major element of public interest is that justice means justice not only to the accused but also justice 305 to society. Accordingly, in passing sentence, a court has to consider not only the offence and the offender, but also the interests of society. The court acts as a vehicle to show 310 [10]. Having said that, the High Court typically refrains from interfering with a sentence when exercising its revisionary powers, unless it finds the lower court's sentence to be clearly inadequate, excessively harsh, unlawful, or inappropriate considering all presented facts or those that the court is expected to judicially notice. This suggests that for the High 315 Court to intervene in the sentencing, the lower court must have significantly misapplied the correct sentencing principles. It is a firmly established practice that the High Court does not change a sentence merely because it might have chosen a different sentence. This principle was clearly stated by Hashim Yeop Sani J in Public 320 Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 with the following words: normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence of the lower court is either manifestly inadequate or grossly 325 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 court 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 330 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 practice that the court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have [11]. As such the criteria under which an appellate court may revise a lower court's sentencing decision, as established in the Court of Appeal case 335 of PP v. Ling Leh Hoe [2015] 4 CLJ 869, is summarised are as follows: a. The sentencing judge made an incorrect decision regarding the factual basis for the sentence. 340 b. The trial judge erred in understanding the material facts presented. c. The sentence was fundamentally flawed in its principles. 345 d. The sentence was either manifestly excessive or insufficient. [12]. Having reviewed the law governing appeals on sentencing, I will now evaluate the sentence meted out on the Appellant/Accused by the lower court, in light of the aforementioned legal principles. 350 The sentence meted out against the Appellant/Accused [13]. The sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused falls within the legally permissible range with the prescribed limits for each charge. There was no violation of the maximum allowable sentence. The 355 judge's decision was consistent with legal provisions. Considering the S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 nature of the offense, a sexual offense perpetrated against one's own child is a heinous and morally reprehensible act. It represents a severe breach of trust and duty, inflicting deep psychological and emotional harm on the victim. Such actions not only violate the sanctity of the 360 parent-child relationship but also fundamentally undermine the child's sense of safety and well-being, often leading to long-lasting trauma. This form of abuse is particularly egregious due to the inherent expectation of protection and care that a parent is morally and legally obligated to provide to their child. Taking into account of all these, the 365 sentence meted out is both reasonable and not excessive. It is conceivable that had another judge presided over this case, either at the lower court or on appeal, the sentence might have been even more severe to uphold justice. 370 [14]. The Appellant/Accused did not enter a guilty plea to warrant a reduction in the sentence. Considering the Appellant/A conviction after a full trial for a serious offense, where the Prosecution called (8) eight witnesses, with defence being called, the punishment is appropriate. 375 [15]. Courts must balance the interests of the public and the Appellant/ Accused, prioritizing public interest, especially in light of the disturbing rise in incestuous sexual crimes. It is particularly egregious when offenders, such as the Appellant/Accused, betray the trust of those 380 they should protect, pursuing personal desires over their welfare. This betrayal is accentuated in cases where the offender, like the Appellant/Accused, is a stepfather, a role that inherently demands providing protection, yet in this instance, it has been subverted by committing a grave offence. 385 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [16]. In arriving at the decision by this court to uphold the sentence imposed by the lower court, this court referred to a passage from the case of Public Prosecutor v Sigol bin Singki [2022] 7 MLJ 1, which highlights the statistics of sexual offenses committed against children, especially by those in positions of trust, as mentioned in the "Rang 390 Undang-Undang Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak- Kanak 2017 emphasized that most offenses are committed by family members, often within the home, which complicates detection and reporting. This often results in delayed reporting, with cases sometimes remaining 395 unrecognized until serious consequences, such as pregnancy, arise. The amendment to Section 16 was enacted to strengthen penalties, increasing the maximum imprisonment term from 20 to 25 years, thereby reflecting the gravity of abuse of trust. This amendment highlights the public importance of protecting vulnerable victims and 400 enforcing stricter penalties against family offenders. The passage referred to is as follows: trust to sexually assault the child victim. This fact could be gathered 405 from what w -Undang Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak- (see Rahman bin Mohamad (Lipis) when debating on the Bill stated that in the 10 years alone, the sexual offenders against children involved 410 biological fathers (23.9%), step-fathers (23%), uncles (18.7%), biological brothers (12.5%), cousins (7.2%), brother-in-laws (5.3%), step-brothers (4%), grandfathers (1.6%) and step-grandfathers (1%). 415 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [18] The said minister was further recorded to have stated - kenalan itu sendiri, maknanya ahli keluarga itu sendiri. Oleh sebab itu bila saya mendengar hujahan daripada rakan-rakan sebentar tadi untuk menarik perhatian bahawa kita kena memainkan peranan di 420 sekeliling keadaan persekitaran kita, jiran-jiran kita, kita kena melihat apakah keadaan sebenar jiran-jiran kita itu. Akan tetapi perkara yang berlaku ini adalah disebabkan berlaku di dalam rumah itu sendiri. Kadang-kadang mereka tinggal di rumah kampung atau rumah bandar itu sendiri yang jaraknya jauh daripada orang ramai. 425 Bagaimana kita nak melihat perkara ini berlaku, sebab dia berlaku dalam rumah dia. Kalau sebagai seorang yang kita katakan tadi mahram dia sendiri dia lakukan perkara itu. Bagaimana kita nak mengesan setelah dia melakukan perkara tersebut, maka sudah pastilah dia juga melakukan ugutan terhadap mangsa itu sendiri. Jadi 430 kita mengharapkan supaya apa yang berlaku ini, kita hendaklah akui bahawa kanak-kanak ini sering terdedah dalam keadaan bahaya di kalangan anggota ahli keluarganya sendiri yang kita boleh anggap sebagai musang berbulu ayam ataupun haruan makan anak itu sendiri. 435 Dalam konteks penderaan kepada kanak-kanak ini, kebanyakan kes penderaan seksual terhadap kanak-kanak ini laporan biasanya lambat dibuat sebab yang saya katakan adalah disebabkan kena ugutan daripada ahli keluarga sendiri. Kadang-kadang kita sedar sehingga kanak-kanak ini telah mengandung, baru kita sedar ada 440 perubahan berlaku pada kanak-kanak ini barulah kita mengambil keputusan untuk membuat laporan polis. Kadang-kadang kita tidak membuat laporan polis kerana kita memikirkan ini adalah ahli keluarga kita sendiri melakukan. Kalau bapa dia sendiri atau bapa tirinya atau sebagainya, dia 445 menganggapkan bahawa satu mata pencarian akan hilang kalau S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 mereka melakukan laporan tersebut. Maka inilah yang hendak kita bayangi dengan perubahan daripada akta-akta ini maka mungkin juga kita boleh serba sedikit mencegah daripada perkara yang berlaku itu, sebagaimana yang saya katakan lebih berbelas ribu kes 450 [19] In this respect, it must be noted that while section 14 already provides for imprisonment term of not exceeding 20 years, when read with section 16, the imprisonment term is increased to not exceeding 455 25 years. This clearly indicates that Parliament recognised the vulnerability of victims to persons who are in relationship of trust with them. Respectfully, it would be contrary to public interest to not give effect to the provision when dealing with cases of such nature. 460 [17]. In reaching this decision, the court is also mindful not to submit entirely to public interest or to excessively punish the Appellant/Accused, such as by ensuring they never see the light of day outside of prison, due to the seriousness of the offense committed. In Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik v. PP [2009] 4 CLJ 638, His Lordship Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he 465 then was) in considering the issue of public interest, where the appellant pleaded guilty to the Sessions Court to 5 offences of rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code and where the victim was his stepdaughter who was below the age of 16 years at the time of the rape incidents. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 470 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan for each and every offence. In total, sentence to serve was 75 years in jail and to receive 50 strokes of the rotan. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the term and to receive the maximum rotan of 24 strokes. In allowing the 475 appeal, His Lordship said this : S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 e High Court order as we refused to submit to public opinion; public opinion is like the sword of Damocles that hover over the head of any trial judge, constantly intimidating the court to surrender to the 480 [18]. At paragraph 24, of the same case (Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik (supra)) His Lordship criticised the impracticality of sentencing a 48-year-old man to 75 years, surpassing average life expectancy and straining 485 logic, warning that such irrational sentences could invite public scrutiny and tarnish judicial credibility. This is what His Lordship said: An appellate court will not be overly ready to interfere with any sentence imposed by the trial court unless there are very good 490 reasons to do so. For purposes of this case, suffice if we merely peruse the sentences meted down, subsequently to be affirmed by the High Court, from the point of view of logic. It is statistically accepted that the average life span of a Malaysian man is 70 years whilst that of a Malaysian woman 75 years. In time the average 495 life span will increase. That being so, with the appellant now 48 years old, on average he has 22 years of good life left. To impose a sentence that will take him until the age of 123 years old, and knowing fully well that he never will serve the full term, not only is bizarre but strains the intelligence of the court. Any illogical 500 sentence may attract unnecessary scrutiny and negative comments from the public on how we awkwardly conduct 505 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Conclusion [19]. Based on the above, and being mindful of the words of His Lordship Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he then was), who compared public opinion to the 'sword of Damocles' hanging over trial judges as a 510 constant threat, implying that judges feel pressured or intimidated by public opinion to yield to the public's unreasonable demands', and considering the principle of law relating to sentencing in the long- standing case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake (supra) as stated by Raja Azlan Shah LP (later His Majesty YDPA) that judges, influenced 515 by human nature and individual perspectives, may reach different conclusions in similar cases, leading to varying sentences. As such the appellate court typically refrains from interfering unless there is a compelling reason, despite potential sentence disparities. This is what His Lordship said: 520 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, 549). It is for that reason that some very conscientious judges have thought it their 525 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 530 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. 535 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [20]. Accordingly, since this court found no significant error in the lower court's decision and sentencing, except for a minor error which was considered, the appeal is allowed partially. Specifically, we allow the sentences in cases AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 and AA-42JSKH-3- 01/2023 to run concurrently, while upholding the lower court's 540 sentencing for the other offenses. Consequently, the total years of imprisonment imposed by the lower court remain unchanged as the net effect of this court's order. 545 Date: 11 December 2023 Moses Susayan 550 MOSES SUSAYAN Judicial Commissioner High Court in Malaya 555 at Ipoh, Perak 560 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Counsel: 565 For Appellant/Accused : Azwan bin Abdul Wahab Advocates and Solicitors Omar Azwan & Partners Ampang, Selangor 570 For Respondent : Geetha Jora Singh Deputy Public Prosecutor Prosecution Unit Perak Legal Advisor Offices 575 (Notice: This Grounds of Judgment is subject to further editing) 580 Headnotes Appeal on Sentencing - test for an appeal against a sentence must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a 585 sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. Sentencing - court should prioritize public interest, deterrence, rehabilitation, and tailor punishment to each case and the criminal - 590 High Court only revises lower court sentences if they are inadequate, excessive, illegal, or improperly based on the facts or law, not just due to differing views - court typically avoids interfering trial court sentences unless strongly justified, focusing on 595 S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 logical and realistic considerations, such as the appellant's life expectancy against the sentence length. S/N tP7tYRJXEWnzwLKL/YhoQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-24NCvC-747-06/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) DAVID CHEAH SENG CHYE 2. ) Michael Cheah Seng Jin 3. ) Dr Khaw Wooi Soon PENCELAH DICADANGKAN1. ) TAN SIEW JOO 2. ) SO MIAU SONG 3. ) LEE WALLY 4. ) TAN CHIN HERNG

Leave to intervene and to set aside ex parte orders – Whether abuse of court process – Whether breach of natural justice and fundamental right to be heard – Whether claim is barred by res judicata and estoppel – Whether finding of the Court of Appeal on private trust is obiter dicta.

13/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fdf0c984-65fe-4c46-89fd-dbc4b514e896&Inline=true

13/12/2023 15:57:46 PA-24NCvC-747-06/2023 Kand. 53 S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal u—2mcvc—7n—o6/2023 Kand. 53 12/12,2122: name In the High Com 0! Malaya in Penzng 1n the State ov Penang, Malaysm Ong atlng summons Na FA 24NCvC—631 5/2023 Da\an1 pevkara Amanah Persendman L1am Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan lndenture Cheah Leong Kean berlankh 5.3.1941 Dan ua1am coma: Amanah Psrsendxrian Mam Hood Yong Char Sang Thuan Cheah Lenng Kean beflankh 25.11.1933 Dan Da1am Alssan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan benankh 3.3.2023 man Yang Am HMR Abdm Kanm. HMR s Nanma Balan den HMR Lvm Chang Fang Dan Dalam Ir\|Br aha FEIBVIQQEH 56, $0 — $5 Nasan Penghakvnan Mahkamsh Rayuan Mendeklarasikan dan I alau Fmdmg av Facts Liam Hood Tong Chm Seng man umam Vndenlure benankh 6.31941 dan Coma! bertankh 26.11.1933 Cheah Leong Keah ialah Amanah Persendman Dan Dalam perkara berkenaan Harlanah Lot 491 da1am Geran No. 20345. Lo(492 dalsm Gsran No. 20349, 1.01292 dalam Geran 5935 dan Lot 93:: aa1am ssran No. 20273 kesemua d1 Seksyen 1, Banner Georgelmm Daerah ‘nmur Laul. Pulau Pmang Dan Da1am psrkara Pevlarmkan Pemegang Bam un|uk Amanah Persen man Mam Hnad Tang Chor sang Thuan Dan Dalam nerkara mer aha s A5, A3, 59 Akla Pemegang Amanah 1950 m r.m»s1amm-ava1u “Nana s.n.1...1a.m111... 3.... w my 1... nrW\ruH|:I mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum M1 Dan Da\am perkara - pefkar-a dalam pevunlukkan da\am Kanun Tanah Negara Dan Dalam perkava Kasdah 92 mlsr aha Kaedah 94 dan Kaedah 5 mleraha Penman A Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 (Rules ov com 2012) Between 1 David Cheah Sang Chye 2 Miv:hae\ Cheah Sang Jvn 3 Dr Khaw Wnui Soon .. Applcams And Psguam Negara Mmaysxa Pmposea lnlervenerl Respondent And 1 Tan siew Jan 2 50 Man Song 3 Lee Wally 4 Tan Chm Hemg [Pemegang . pemegang Amanah Awam mam Hood Tong Chor Seng Thuan) Proposed lntervsnsrsl Respondents Heard uogen-er wi\h \n ma Hwgh Court 0! Maxaya m Penang In me S(a|s 01 Penang Malaysia Ongmg ng Summons N F’ cm 47 6/2023 Dalam Penman Deklavasx Mahkamah Tmggl Pmau Plnang benarikh sezoza Mendeklarasxkan Amanah Lxam Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan adalah sa|u Amanah Persendlnan (Fnvals Trust) m nun»/~5\RLy.Hm/Elfimy mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! dlsrnlssed Based on me ground thal me 1-‘ Appllcanrs clslm. lnal ma lands are under ms larnlllrs pnvale lrusl, IS barred by res judrcara. 34. ll would have been meal penrnenl lpr lne Appllcarrls lp rnglrllgm paragraprrs [es] — [57] of ma grounds pl ludgrnanl pl lrre courl pl Appeal. wnlan reads 156] Thu), w. agms wl|h ma lnlalvm1a(Iun|hn|wns advnnced by me Awellarll more US However, we Agpul: mm by msorr A: sum: In puaprapvr 55 almve Cuncluslorl [571 M lrra result. In: Appvllx In Imus-li wllh ears as Plarnly‘ lne cpun dl Appeal neld mat the 1“ Applrcanrs appeal did not succeed ldr lrre reason as slated in paragraph [56] pl me grounds ol ludgrnem Trral has relererrpe no me lam man we Court pl Appeal nad amrrned lne llnding ol the dean below regarding res ]udlca|a. And an oral ground, had dlsmrssed lrle 1" Aonlrcanfs anneal. as Al paragraph [56] 04 mar gmunds pl ludgmeru. me cpun or Appeal s|a|ed ‘[55] Om rmlrrrmrprr ad mare. Ahmld Shlhviv bin S.II|Ih'x llrralrrg on In judlcall is ldlqulln ur dilmln .III rm mm xpmnls or Davld crlearl serrp Chye peldre us we as 2 and os 3 c.lmle| be srrsralned wrrerr 5Ul| l lalle Yhnlagn slrlclly rrrrrreeessary hm ldr oomp|e|eness lrr me sake er pub|lcIrl|aIu51‘ we wlll deal wnrl me pallles‘ rlval subslannvs comsmluns an mralrrar me Lands are sublsdsd lo a publlc chanlable mm orvlIva|e1Ns|' Breach ol Natural Jus e and lne F nggmgnlal Rlglrl In be Heard 37. Trra Federal court ln Dr Lourdes Dave Raj a/l Culuz Dulai Ra] V Dr Mrllon Llml slaw Wall & Andr [2020] 5 MLJ 135 relleraled lne well — esrapllsrrad legal pnrlclpls lnal an order made agarnsl a pany lrr breach or ms mrrdarnarrlal rlgnl |a pe rreard ls a breacrr dl namral lusllce wlrlclr renders the order a rrulmy and llaple rp be sel aslde 3:. The Federal Courl sald lal page 198‘ mm -1231:» me firs! quesllorl prlaw, or Lauroes relred an III: on: pmdrrrarrpy an Thamba xaurrdan 5 Am)! v D s c Bank and 5 Ana! [lass] r MLJ an (:5; lMmlarlL1y) rd mm IN DOM! la mcogmu mar ll ls a branch drrralrrral /«slim no: lo accord or Lwmls ms rrgm in be rrrard Murlfandy rs BMMOUIY lor me well - srltlud pnrlclpls prraw mar .rr err4.r mud! ngnfnsl a party Irl bnacn ofllls r 1 SN hMrlwIr5lRly.Hm/EIRYalg “Nana Smnl mrrlhnrwlll .. .r.... M M», r... nflglrullly mlhln dnuurlml VI nFluNQ pmul furldlmurlln right tn [:0 ud is bnncll ornarur-llusuee ll nndort in- me: . rrulhry Ind is tllbll re ea sat asm I351 The semi-id respenaenla eeuneelsuornmee mlmue was no Dfljudfoe to or Lourdes nor being given notice or the nmial review proceed/W5 and/nor ma eppenuniry ta bl naere ar lhe same‘ on ma beer mar Dr Loamas was new were me Pmtlrmrlary lnaulw cernrnlrree am: the we, and me would alm- pmusadlrlgs before me we was below me Nlyli courr arid Court‘ a(Apuoa/ m we mdlnral ravrew proceeding: we rem: rm aorllurllran as me pnnmplea oi nzmrauustica er. not sensm by reason L1lDr Lourdes having me eaponurnry lo dsland hmlsullill me domastlc Inqlmy praoeemngr me new to M rmrre on ma plrflnullr Incl: or rm Insunt appeal, exrerma to all new of me pmcxlding: wmen alveerea mm, am: lnrs irwuaes tllnudlclatprmeedngs me Cour! omppeai wilri mspscl orvsdiri rialconsldsmlg Mn miscarriage ornrerne surrerea by D! Loumcs man mmpaseu a lmdmg elgurlr on him annraemclea ms llgnl re Do new in ms eeranea lo nnly numng in a plea or rrutrgelien more me we - 39 Having tailed to obtain the renal he craved in me 2015 suit and me Appeal 159, the 1“ Applicant elected to relriigeie the same issue via me as herein lain on an ex pane basis that tailed to respeu the pmposed inierveners right to he heard. 40. ii is my linumg mar the ex pane arders eereinea by me An were made in breach ol me pmpusad interveners' tundamentai right to be neere. such breach or naturai iuslice, in my opinion, renrlers me ex pane oraere null and void‘ and liable to be set aside. M. The lnlervenere were me regisrerea owners and trustees atthe lands, Imtii mey were replaced by the Apelieerris pursuant ie me ex pane orders. The Applicants are tuily aware that the iritervellers were me registered uwners and trustees ol the lanes Morecver. the 1“ Applicant had attempted in ciaim the lanes in the 2015 sun and in the Appeal 159, but are not suuzed. 42. The solicitors tor the Applicants, Messrs Ismail Khon & Associates and its partner Mr John Khou Eco Lai, were at one point representing the 1" Applicant In the 2015 suit The knowledge ot the sellcitals Is imputed en the 2" and 3~= Applicants In one lriattel 43 As the registered owners and trustees of the lands at the material time, the inlarveners had a direct isgal Interest in the lands Thus‘ the ex pane eraers nblained by the Applicants had enemy ellecreu me illtevesl 07 the tnterveners By not naming the intervenels as H pany and proceeding ex pane, the Appllnants had denied nerurel justice to the :2 sm huriw/l5iRly.Hm/Elfitoiy «en. s.n.i nuvihnrwttt r. u... M mm the nltgtlrnttly MIMI dnuminlrl VII .nuue pnlui lrllerveners. In me case ol the AG, he has been prevenled lrorn carrylrlg OIJI nle duiy as lrle cuslodlan cl me said lrllsl. In lrle Dfemlsesl me preposed lnlsrveners‘ appllcallorl lo lrllerverle and lo eel aslde lrle ex pane orders oplalrled by the Appllcarlls ought Ia be allowed. 44 The Federal cdllrl ln Manelpn Propermsllpra) rllled lrlal an ex pane ordercarl always be se| aslde. And when an order was oulalned ex pane, lne nnnelple ol lllrlclus omclo does not avbly Trle Federal colln sald (at page 543 - 544): ‘[42] me EOIIII lnok mle Mme Drelmlefll Dmclloe amoml DVSc1l(x1lIers|D Wucaed ll. an ex pane raenlon In rllaxlrv; aw|lca1lorlslorTDDiItrado dascllpfrorl order) urlaev 5 la cl lle rm [Travis Dasmptrorv Ac! 2M1] ll war «ulna lrlel male was Reliving wlellg or lllagal ll. such a WII:1lD!.!Im)S ln. aflacwd perm Velillll Ihe rlght bu applyw $€|a$IdB an ex pine mo lal para: [59] a [£2]; All ax Dam oldur un ml-ys be sel Islde Ina . noun Is not vllmllr ewlcle lo revlew a ma omallled ex pane anrlollurr Delleded nle nurll oval. enecled person lo army to rel erlde an ax pm me lr a llgrll wrllcrl exlsll averand abovelhs elrlerclull l1msdI€$ aulleul. In nlrll ml Is llxllelly wrlal ln. apptllams dld ln lnla can In me Hlgrl COM?‘ belawl lfley nnplled In lrllervelle nnd la 59.1 nslde rrle ex pane mo- Tne Appllcarll 05 la. barred by Ree Jlldlcala and Eeloppel 45. ln me 2n15 Skill‘ «re 1" Appllcarll represented the henellclanes M the esla|e enrle deceased Tne deceased rlad crealed me sald lmsl aver me lands lrlal formed ole bone uloorllenllon unne zms sllll ln lrle 2015 sull, me 1" Aopllcanl clelmed lhal the sald Irusl ls a pllvale lanlily lfusl, and rlel a publlc crlarllable lrllsl. 46. me calm 01 Appeal rlad dllly eerlsldered lne basls oi |he 1“ Appllcanrs clai ms Appeal 159 Trlls ls rellecled al paragraprl [27] pl lne grdllrlds dl llldgnlerll dune colln cl Appeal, wnlen reads. 1271 lrl sull 1, Davld crleul seng crly. mlllallded |hl| ln. lllllll vlfltellby me Tmlilnr appelrlled nle lrllee sans as llllsleee Io hullfl lne Pagnfla runled ‘LL-Em Hand Tlng Cmr seng rnllerr rwnlerl ln cnlrleee lranslallarl lneml anfiesllal wolshlfl hall or allarl allprled wlln crllnese cllllllre and ellslarll as lesllned by me experlwrllless. Dr Ian AI Eaey ls al Dflvak mm nllslrlomed Dytlva Taslatar havlrlw clearly observed lrle rllles adalrlsl pevvalllllllls lrl respecl ul lrle |Vu£\ our lrlll nlllldlng or he Pagoda and plwlslarl ellllllds ll; ulllld ll ~ 47 In eppoelng lrle 2015 Suil, me pmposed lnlerveners asserl max me said lrllsl crealed over me lands ls a pubhc charilable lrllsl And lhal me l 3 SN hMrwI95lRly.Hm/Elfitalfl “Nair Smll nurlhnrwlll be UIQG In may l... nflfllnnllly ml. glam. Vfl .rllllla Wm! 1-‘ Appttcartrs 2015 sutt, ctatnung tnet the lands ts under a pnvale tarntty lrusl. ts barved by res judtcata ana esmvner. 4a. This is rettectea at paragraphs [31] and 133] at the grounds at tuagnteht ot the court at Appeat, which reads. “tau tn oppostttart sa Klau Son‘ rat chang, ran Srevntoo, tee watty and Tan chtrt Hemg natlsnlvely wttnI:r- pantenaaa that the tnaertture ptatr-ry evtnoed a publlc ch ’ blnnnlhecattse Mme presence attha cvuclalwolds -utwrr trust to attuw attpersprrs who progsss ms suuahrsr rnlrgron In warshrp arm parrarrrr ralrgmua cammorvss ur mniurmtry wrtn trr. t9tmdIn:1 mlfgmn at the sat: pagoda" In the trtnartture [33| tt u atsp arnpnasrsea tnatay vtnue ouurttcs Musuphs rt ssltnsdecman matte an 2- septentaer 1962 pursuaru ta ntgh Cnurl at F. -lug Ongtnalmg Summons Na. 357 cl 1971‘ the iubpem rnatterarra tenets saughl tn the sun are barnd by us tuntcata srta ulnppll “ 49 The Conn pt Appeal rutaa that the I" Appttt:aht's 2015 stttt, on aenatr at the beneflciartes at tne estate at the deceased. was barred by res tuutcata. This appears at paragraphs [54] ana [55] ot the grounds of tudgrrtent at the Courl of Appeat, whtch reads‘ 1541 cpnseauernty, we nrta that there ts rte mluilnnlhm by Justin Ahnua Shlrlvlain Sallnh who hlld that suttt ts haw-d by us lndlcala try resuarr cl Jusnca Mttsuphs Hnssatlfs aeotstort auteu 2 saptarrtasr tan: In trns resped we turther find and note that Jumcn rttturtspna Husssrns dectstnn tnat I5 evtdewed by ms ground: at judgmlnl dllad 2a Attgus| tsaz terrtatns vatta norwtthstanotup nu kn praar ms never drawn up by etrher at me pamu Dumtam to o :2 r to at me Rutes at the mph CattrI198I1.AI are as we are mncamedt me aeerstan ol Jusllcs Mustapha Huiutn has Devi ttnmmnkably rnatte and that s attrhar matters here [set our afllrmallon 51 Jun’ Alumna Sh tutr hln sattews llnfllnq on us tuatuta II afluqulh In dlxmlsl an Inn mu Ippuli or new chaan seru; Chyn aetare us the os 2 and os 3 cannot be wslalnsd when Sml I tarts maugh slnnlly urmeoessary put tor porrtptatsrrasr tn the take at pttbltc uttetest. we wttt aaat wtlh Ins pames‘ rtust auastarrtrve mnlemiorts an whether the Lands are suotactau ta a pupttc ehsrrtaate Imsl at nnvale trust " so The present 05 Mad by the Appttcahts is the third attempt by the beneltciianes at the estate at‘ the rtepeaaea Ia tay ctatrh lo the lands Based on Ihe ecnlenlton that lhe Wands are (hetr IEVIIIIYS pnvale INS1 lands ll ts my findvng that the as hevetn is srrrtitarty barred by res judtcala and 8510999‘. IA SIN hunw/fifitfilyflm/Elfituty «war. s.r.t mmhnrwm r. u... m van; t... nngthnuly sun. dnuuvtnnl VII .nurte amt 51 Tne cuun nas power under section 11 av lne Schedule pv me Couns ovaudicalure Ac11964|u disnriss1ne Applicants‘ clarrn on me ground vnel lne dispule over me lands is res ludlcala pevween them and ine proposed Inlerveners. The said provision reads 111 Resludlcala Puwsv 1o dlimlu or may prlvusdlrvgs wnsrp me rnsner in qusvstlnn is res ludlcnla bulwurl vne |>iVlI51,or men by mason p1 rnulucrplrcre, pv pmceedlngs in any aeurrs ine pmceedlngs dugnr nm lo be mminued 52. on res judlcals, me Caurl ov Appeal nad reacned lne vollawlng conclusion at paragraphs [51] - [52] av their grounds at ludgmem: 1511 Aller due curlslderfillun, we are in me vlew lml special clmumslames which exclude rne upnlrcemn allesludlcaln or issue esropnel are dnly alllacted updn rne nlslnrlvv dernensuaung lne rnresnpld redurrevnenl ov nleqaiiw. Vick 0' lullsdldlon urnaua wnrsn has occaxloned in me onainal a:|larl Nonevnsim, ms piarnlriv may mil be denied lne oppollunny In oulsus me vmn udlurl N specpl cl-purnsranm dlnjlze lnsnr ll urnusrvurvne plllmflm dn sd PM in irlolhelwny. spuprsl pnaurnsvenpss flu mi Brent: 5 new ullngary warvanlmg rne nmsull M a vresn anion hm operere In deny lne DuIsm|almeV|esV1 serum norwrrnslanmnu lllewalflyv lack M iurlsnmnn or vraud nas been nrads mn ms is seen in cnss Pok cnoy lsuwa) wnere lne nesn anion premised on naud was sliuwea 1a procesd became n was vauna, on me veal: and snpunrsunm pv me use (ml 1| was urllus1 var lne plaln|M|hu1llI|o prulrv on in. lraud 1| perperrersd an lne mun [52] Based on rne veas never II is Dial?! 1r1a|Davld Chsah Sena cnye nsrlner pleaded IVIEQIIW1 lack av iunsmupn nor vraua la ruslrvy Hm lnsI1|u|lon uv sun 1 Na also norluedad virus is no case aulhonly 1ns1 public cnanuele uusl and /or private lNs| am a specrsl I:l|agnry Wham in. duclnna nl .es ludlcam puglrl nm vp nvmy * 53. Slrloa lne sumevn mafler av lne Applicanls presenl 03 and me 1-‘ Appllcanfs 2015 surl penarn to me same lands, and are based on lne sanre cause pv aciipnl vaeis, issues and relieis, I firm ma| lne App|lcanls' claim aver 1ne lands IS paned by res ludll:a|a The finding av lne Ccurl ov Aggeal on g ’ ale (ms ’s obiler male 54. Tne decision o1 me ceun ol Appeal in me Appeal 159 nae decided lna1 me 1-‘ Applicant’: claim [0 ins lands, on the argument lnel lne lands are under a pm/ate 1arnilylrus1end not a public cnarnanle lmsl. Is barred by res ludlcala Tnal is the ratio deciderldl oi the Courl av Appeal Tne 1“ Applrcanl cannol now seek any relievand claim me lands again, using the same argunvenl lnal lne lands are under a pnvale Iamlly lrusi 1 5 sm nunwvvslfikydlm/Elkrulv «mu. s.n.1 ...n.mn r. .1... e may r... uvnn.l-r mm. mmn VI srlulva v-mxl 55 eranleu lnal ma cam 91 Appeal men pmseeded lo pm 9 men Vlsws ocncemlng lns lnlarpralallpn of the lndsnlure. ln mus vagam, me caun pl Appeal agreed wllh lna argument advanced by me 1“ Applicam lnal lne sale lmal ls a prrvale lmsl 56 In thelr grounds of judgment, me com :2! Appaal sam: -{s»:1nu.s,wa ale ol ma vlaw mal lna -ma nature of lna lms| ln ouasuorl have will depend on me corlilruwon pl lna Cudul ma lndenmm opmsxlually rem aaalnsl ms backdrop nl cnmaaa cllllllm and suslmn see Hm Vlk cnal s Hay vaw Tang 5 Anal [1952] 2 Ml.) 221 so {am We have aavslully man daules 10[a)lnd lllmmalms coma: and clause llal — (cl av lne lmanvms and um nm the raslamrs dammam lmamnn V! la have me Pagoda bum as a amaulsl anaasual nall lanna Taslztzoru «amlly and aaspamama lp wnrshln ancsslms as uaslman by ms sole axpsll wllness Dr ran Alfiusy VII declphellng me name uamlalanly mm lauaanalapanlsausayvong (hall) cm sang tancsston Thuan lallan Llim Hand Yhnna Cher Sena man xlmlvg mgemer meanlx Buddhlsl anpaaual nall / allaroiworshlp [ell ln afldmun, the Teslainr navm anvmmaa nus ln-as sum ml nm me Exaculuvjln nnple-namnlswlsnss unuama lmenlurv nmnaalsnlwlln cnlnssa wnura nnd cuslflm on Dulldllvg ansawal wurshlp nall l BN3! »ma.a.n responsmlllly I5 vested only an nula llnenge mn lna same Teslzlors surname mesa are commonly done by weallhy cnlnase lamlllas ln cmna. Yarwnn And Malaysla aocuvdlng us Dr van wnomwa am sallsraa Ii an amply quslflied experl on lnls mmerbnsed on he! numculum unas [n21 Be Ina! as II may‘ we in nnmml (ha! lheve ls alsa lmsnllpn mlna Teslnml m pemlll all psnana who nmless lns Budflhlfl mlnglon lo wmmp and peflnml rsllglaus cualnanlas VII oonlanvllly wlln ms auaunm valiglun .n me pappaa We mwnver «nu ma: mls ls ma rsslamrs Iewlsnt Intvllmn xubamlnaled In n-a darI\4nBn| lnlzmlun ol pulualng an ancuual wurshlp nall / anal pamculany zw mm usmg lns word 'aIlvw‘ .n cllusu Mb) Mlhe lnslenme [ecu Cormanuemly am slnce lna Teslalnrr dominant Inlsnlmn IS to have lne Pagudn ml: as An ancaml wan-p nan /altar. wl find nu: ma mm which In: bean cnatcu for mu purpou um um conulllm a puhlhc chlrlubln lmanlpllowlng Slv Han Nu: m. V um Klm sang a. Ann! [1955] 22 MLJ142 male wnmon J nalu as fnllawx , wlm regalfl lo Ihe anoeslval npuss mwannlp l| I: clenr Ihrs was a snnna for lnmlly purpasas, and I do ml flunk l|l euenllal pm/ale nalma V5 uflsuad by the pmvmon my me dnvlbullon al alnls nr loud |a pool tvavnllvs DY la alher pool psrwns wtm mvgm came up Worship an ms house or Irv: In me vlninlty, Var I lsal ma pnmslan was oon|empl:4ed by ma same: pnmnly as aflordmg «manual asslslance to an adlvlly 01 gm mm W cnnnecuorl mm lna ancsslval house and ml as an aulxmnce cl . pananal namra lp ma allmmpn 15 sm hunwlvfilfilyflm/EIRYaln “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. l... M mm .. anan.u.y mm: dnuuvlnnl VI arlum puns! pl ms oondmorl pl me your suns rlslghboulmud ar av lmpnvlnshtd llmarlntx passlng lnrpugn n lvlnn vltw n wind nel only ll lnsrs an nbsenne pl e gsnsrsl snsnlslsls rnnssnlsn ln rupecl nllnn lnlsl. hm n my pprrnen II has rlal lnsl mulls e4emen| wrnsn n rehglmls Vusl charkable In law rnllsl possess tsllnrollrv opnlsa. 06 [1949] AC 426‘ [msl 1 AH an my I have mashed me corlclusmns, aeponlmly lrlal ms mm In rvsaacl 0' ">9 wwlr "lawn Wssesslrlu no uenelal cnarnaple -nlenllen, ls s walla cnsnlabls (rust ml lr-al lns mm -n vewed or ms amewzl hou pl wprsrnp cannnl es r-psnlsu es snanmals, andls|ham1uu,nu\|am mu lampmsrs easel) [Ml Mnleaver ln Re Nun. asseassa llsssl MLJ as, ll was held lnal In be a chamy ln law, me lrusl rnnsl be eslnbllshed lor purposes wrnsn ave sxclnswsly cnamaple. see also Nal sang Nlarly v rrrs Tnmasi mlns Pvasblflhrlan crnnsn ln slnqspcvs Reqlllered L ols [was] 3 MLJ 311 we Ivvlaln unmnvllwad lrnn me 1. nor had rnlsnuaa ls aslapllsn a llusl whlch was In be exclusively snssnnsls I351 ln me nrenrlses, we one and held lrlal lnere ls no Qensml erlanlapls lnlernnn ny |he rsslanpr |u mvesl lne Lands luv purposes m vuhgluul chamy psr-srally rrrs Irunwllichwu uutnfl bylhn Yuulo s masons. . privlh «run man Is lncapapla pl Cy-was upon hllure puns lrusl sanlrary tn mar as laund Ind nsla by Juallce Alnnns Shihm bln Salleh win concurred wlln Justine Muslavha Hussaln" 57 The courl pl Appeal oplnea lnal me said Irusl is a prlvate Irus1 Bu\ lhal eonnnenl was made ln pesslng. Hence. apller alcla. Tnsl llrrding was npl essenllal vol lne aesnnon nl |he calm ol Appeal ln lne Appesl 159 Nsvenneless, lne ceun ol Appeal maugnl ll dsslrahle lo provide llselr views, given me rwal conlenllcns ol me panies on «ms palm 53 lrl the own words onhe Courl oi Anneal- -[551 Our almrrnallsn m Jnmloe Anrnsu snsnnr bln sallens finding on Iusludlcala Ii aasquals In msnnss all me was appeals ev Damd Chalk Sung Shy: were us hr: cs 2 and cs 3 cannot be snslsrnss wharl sun I lsrls rnellqn nticlly ulul-I:-Illly hullnv cnmplmmvlsl in lns sake er puhlm nneresl we wlll flul wllh um a mu‘ flnl snhslnnllw cnnumlons on wrmhnr c Lands as suns-em: Ia - vuhllc I:hu(uNI lmsl or vvlvann lmst’ 59, ll ls nlsln mat me coun cl Appeal had smnneu Ihe llndlng ollne courl below regardlng res lualcale The Court or Appeal lnerelore dismissed lhe 1" Appllsanrs Appeal 159 on me ground 0! res judlcala. Tha| IS me rsllo decldendi so The Courl v1 Appeal expllcnly slaled that I\ IS unnecessary to deal wlln me rrvsl canlenllor-s ol whelher the lands are sublecl lo a nu 17 srn hunwlvslfilyflm/Elfitulfl “Nana s.nn luvlhnrwm n. UIQG e may r... nrwlruuly mm: dnuavlml VI nrlum Wm! eharltable trust cl! a private iainily trust Albeit that the court oi Appeal proceeded to do so, ior cempletenesa in the sake oi public interest 61 Given that the iinding oi a private ttust is not essential to the decision oi the Court oi Appeal in the Appeal 159, the saine rriust pe regarded as opiter dicta. Accordingly, it does not have oinding weight. otherwise. tithe hnding that the said tmat is a private trust was the ratio decidendi. the 1' Applicant's Appeal 159 would have been alluwed Obviously that was not the outcome oi the Appeal t59. 62. In an earlier pan oi their grounds pi iudgntent, the coun oi Appeal had teocg ed that the cure issue peicte them is the issue oi res iudi ta. And that tnetv decision on the said issue will determine whether it s necessary ior them to decide on the remaining findings with regard to the nature and consequence oithe s trust 53. Paragraph [431 oi the grounds oi ludgineni oi the Court oi Appeal reads ‘[43] we have therelaie in the exerase oipurappetiate iiirietiaii reviewed tustice Ahiiiad snahiir pin sallahs ground at iudgiiiaht in the light at the contentuaiis rlnw advarioed more us it iserris me at Inn we iiiust iiist detdnriiiia tho iliidtnp en ru iudtcat. as this will :1 rate whether it raiiiaiiia lllcilllvy thmaitar to daiaiiiitiia IM rsriiatiitiip tiiidliigi an the IIIIMM and coiiaaguiiiess oittia Imst as tiedueathed trvthstestatpr- 64 Aiter considenno the issue of res iudieatar the court oi Appeal amrnied the iindtng oi the court tielow un ies iudicala. Arid stated in no uncenain terms that such aiiirrnation is adeqtia|e lo dismiss the appeal oi the 1“ Applicant in the Appeal 159. it iotlows that it was not necessary ior the cpun di Appeal to decide an the nature and consequence oi the said trust 65. To sum up, the ‘by the way‘ opinion ol the Court at Appeal, I e. that the said trust is a private tmst as not essenual to their decision in the Appeal 159. The ratio decidendi is the amtrnation oi res ludicala On the ground at res iudicata. the 1" Applicants Appeal 159 was dismissed 36 In the preirllses,|ne1“ Applicant and the ulnar Applicants cannot be permitted in telitigate the same claim over the lands, based on the same argument Ina! the lands are ttrtdera pill/ate farnlty trust. In the Appeal t59, the coun oi Appeal had clearly decided that such a claim by the 1" Apptlcant is barred by res ludtcata IN 7tMnw/ifilfilyflm/ElRYoly "Nate Sunni nuvlhnrwlll be u... M van; i... nnglrrnllly MVMI dnuuvlnrll v.. aFlt.ING ptmxl Order NA app canons try the Applicants 67 To add irisilli Io iniury, irie Applicants filed uirae applicalions ior dlspusal oi me riiarrer on a point ol law umler Order 14A oi the Rules oi coun 2012. Trirs was done in me mids1 oi exliauslirig affidavits and mine wriuen submissions in re5Decl cl irie Dwnosed lmervenllon ario senirig aside bl me ex Dane onlers The Applicanls contend lriac iriere is no quesliori on lacls And «rial ilia 05 is sullable lo be disposed oi hased on a pbirii bl law under Order 14A ol me Rules ol couri 2012. as Under Order MA onrie Rules o1Cuun2D12, lhe oourl rriay dS|8mIIl'Ia ariyqueslicn cl law or consrrunion pl ariy docurrienl wriere ll appears that -(a) sucri queshon is sunable lor oelerrriiriaiiori wilriom rrie lull lllal ol Ihe amipn, aria lb) sucli oeienninalian will finally delerrriine irie enrire cause or insurer or any claim or issue therein 69. Trie Cmm D1Appeal in Pelmleurri lilasrbnal and y Ksralaan Negeri Tereriggariu & arrozlrer appeal [zoos] 4 cm 337 ar 353 observed (hsl a preliminary quesiiori srioulo be carelully and precisely irariien so as to avoid crmcunies cl rnierpreialion as no what is crie real allesliuri wriicli is being nrdered la be Irled as a preliminary issue 7n. Tne Order MA appllcatlon filed by me Applicants reads ‘1 a ri wi Amarl-III Llim Ham Tang Char serig mrari ia lsri suaiu arrianarr Derserldlrlnn flan bukan ariiariar. khalml l mni (‘public l crranlaple lrusrl din ialari dl buiusliari, dl lelflllkani ai eapali darl l arau oi perlirnoanakari irieiaiui kflerallflarll fakla aari ilrroana ~ urldang pl-ri rinamiarriari Rayuarl pain 3 3 ma uteri Vang AM Hakim Mahkamih Rayuin Abdul rurini NMR s Nariuia aslari can HMR Llm crrprig Fang uunra sehulal sunm ln|er airs oi pererippari as sehlrlgga as Alasari penqrrmnisn isrpuria cl Judgmenll 2 Dan aleh nu. seriula prriali dan rriana » rriaria Mahkamah dl lkull uleh keplllusan Marirarnari Rayuan mslulul doktrlrl rnlaraiia Remludlranla‘ car. siare Diciili 3 Juflem flu‘ Msrilmrisn prpa memplmyal kuasa Immk melurlzskanllrldakarl irii berdasmkarl A MA u llsl Kaeflah —K3Bd’iih Mahkamah znlz 7i In my view. llie Order MA appllcallon filed by me Applicanls is unwarranted and rleleciiye. Firsl, lriere is plainly a dispute oi lacls and findings‘ which mlgm to pe ventilated through an iriler panes nearing oi «lie os To , me oispuie wini regard in me eiieel pl me nnclings ol me courl of Appeal in me Appeal 159 Thai issue rias already been brougm Iolhe lorelrorii via me applieaiioris meo by me proposed iriierireriers lb eel is srn hMnwIi5lRly.llm/Elfitalfl “Nana s.r.i nuvlhnrwlll be mad a may i... bflnlnallly MIMI dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl mi aswde the ex pane urders. There 13 na need «or me Appncams to add to the \ayer or lmgalmn by filmg «us Order MA apnlucanons 12. Second. this \s not a wnl aclncm wnere were wm be a full trial. This Is an cmgmahng summons that win he detidad based on amuavn evidence. men; is already |o be an Inter panes heanng In decvde an the pendmg appucanans tor rmervennon and sewng zswde. Thmwmg an Order HA appncanon Inlc me rmx ws qune unnecessary 73 Third, there was actuauy no queslxon 01 law posed by the Applncanls for \he courts determmahon. Rather than 3 question 07 law. lhe Applicant nns put forward a prayer for the com to aware that me sa \msI \s a pnvale |Vus|, mslead of a public dlamable INS! Bill that is precxsew the Issue ror determination in me pending appncanans mm by me proposed Inlerveners to set aswde me ex pane orders 74 For me reasons above, I dlsrmssed the Or\1er14A applrcanons med by Ina Applrcanns. 75 Inna Applicants msagres wan the decision ollhe Cuurl or Appeal and me mterprelauon mane grounds or judgment onne cuun 0! Appeal In me Appeal 159, the 1“ Apphcanl should have connnuea wan his apphcahan «or weave |o apple‘ to ma Federal Court. 75 lnleresnnglyy the Weave question posed by the Appllcams Included the !aI\awing '\ Whmnsv when the own ul Appam make 2 new Vwndrng on Ian: and law Much wax m:| nan. by me Hugh Court. can the Court nlAwea\ msrmuud (Iva apvul on n.. grmmd oi ..s...a.m-. and esloppa\”’ Costs 77 Order 59 nAs1fl or me Rules a! com 2012 reads’ ‘Hz Cmlsdueln unnecessary clmms or wssues 10 ssr. in) ‘H addmnn la and nol m aeraganon many mm pmulmn .n ma Order. where a party has ram to anamnn any chum ar Issue wmch he has vawsed In any pmoaaunrgs, and has thereby unnecessarfly or umeasonaoly Dmtvanad, or addnd m we was m mmpleuly nl Imsre pvooeedlngs, the Com! may older man the wan cl Ihal pany snnn not be anuma m whola or n. pan, or mm any cnsls cncasmned by man damn onssua m any cnhuv puny man be pmd by hum to ma| unnar parry reqamlan av We mflmme or me muse or maller’ 2o srn nun»/c5\RLy.Arm/Elfitnwg «wn. snrm ...n.ryn .. med m mm .. mn.u.y mm: dnuumrrl y.. mum M.‘ Berkenaarv Hananah Lol N0. 491 da\am Geran No. 20345‘ Lot No. 492 dalam Geran No 20349‘ La! No 292 da\am Geran Na. 5925 din Lot No. 960 dalam Gevan 20273 kesemua dx Seksyen 1. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Timur Lam, Pulau Plnang Da\am nerkara Amanan Parser: an Liam Hand Tong cnar Seng Tnuan Vndenlule cnean Leung Kean benarikh 3 3.1941 Dan Da\am Cndicfl Amanan Perssnmnan Lwsm Hood Tong chm Seng Tnuan cnean Leung Kean benankh 25.11 1935 Dan Da\am perkara Urusan‘ Pemadblran Bayaran Cukax Tanan Temmggak oxen Pemahen » Pemoncn Bsrkenaan Hananah - Hananan Amanah Perssndman |Pnvale Trust) Lwam Hood Tong Chow Sang Thuan henkulan Penman Deklarasx Mahkamah Tinggw Pwau Pinang benarikh 3.5.2023 Dan Dalam perxara Periannkan Pemegang aam unluk Amanah Persendman (Pnva|s mac) mam Hocd Tong Char Seng Tlwan benkulan Penman Deuaras. Mankamah Tlnggv Fulau Pmang s e 202:4 Dan Da\am psrkara Inter ans 3. 45. 45. 59 Ana Pemegang Amanah195O Dan Dalam psrkara - perkaua dalam perunlukkan dalam Kanun Tanah Negara Dan m nMnw»5\Rky.HmEIRra\v «mm. saw ...m.mn .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 71: After lne deolslcn nl llle cpurl al Appeal In llle Appeal lss, me 1“ Applrcanl had med an applraalron lor leave Io appeal lpllle Federal ceurl. aul subsequently wrlrldrew NS Federal coun apphcallon Durlng lne rrearrng, I ouerled me oounsel lor me 1* Applloanl about me reason lor sud’: wllrldrawal The counsel lor lrle I‘ Appllcanl suggesled lrlal ll ls unnecessary lor lllrn lo appeal because llre Court ol Appeal rlad agreed wlllr nls argument llral me sald lnn.l n. a pnvale |rusl ln olller werde. me 1“ Appllcanl lell lnal rlad wnn. ll anylrnng, (he prpppsed lmsrveners shuuld be me ones lp appeal 79 Tnerealler. lne Apnlloancs prooeeded lo file me 05 on an ex parle basis and oblalrled lrle ex lzarle orders Thereby sleallnlly laklng me lands awayl based on lhelr ellegallorl lrlal lrle courl el Appeal had made a dealarallen ln lhelr lavour llral the lands are under a pnvale lannly (ms! l lnrnk llle Appllcanls rlad unneoessarlly and unreasonably pmlracted me nlaller, and esealalecl lrre llllgallpn eosl lcl be lnourred by lne pmpclsad lnlervenuvs an The Appllcancs lunller nled lllree applleallens under order MA ollrre Rules ol courl 2012. oslenslply lo save ludlclal llrne and eesls. Bul lrral ls yet anolner lnalanee ol fihng unnecessary appllcatlnns, and addlng to me costs pl [hears proaeedlngs a1 Havlng regard to me luregulng, I oonsldered ll approprlale lo order lal glunsl oosls M RM5D,DOU lo be pald lo (M lrllervensrs, wllh rupeol lo Enclosure e and Enclosure 2l mill: 1“ cs lnl Iaml wsls nl RMwl0l‘Ifl lo pe pm .a lne AG.wlI1l respeel la Erldnsure 9 and Erlclusule la ln lne 1" 05: and La) global coils pl RM5L7,flDD la be peld |o me lrnerveners. wlln vaspe-:1 ol Enclnsms 15 and Erllimura ls rn ms 2- os concluelpn 32 under order 32 rule 6 ol lrle Rules or cdun 2012. an ex pane order may be sel aslde. I suppose lrle rallonale lor lrral rule ls benause an ex pane order ls grarlled wllnoul lrle benell| el llearrng me elrler sll1e.Thal ls why ‘the party mavlng an ex pane applrcalrpn rncurs a most serlour. raspnnslli y‘ To make lull and crank drselusure, even ol nlarlers wrrlch are ncl| rl llls lavour. l lear me Applloanls have lallen sllon pl suon IN nunwllslfikydlm/Elfirelv “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm re UIQG a may l... nrwlrullly ml. dnuuvlml Vfl nrlurlfl Wm! 63. Now, mm me benem uI hearing suhmssvons Iron: me prcpused inlerveners, I accspnhal Ihe ex pane ordevs were wmngIy granted. I must make (mugs rigm by semng aside me ex pane orders 34 For the reasons above, I gave leave Io the proposed Inlerveners Io Intervene in the OS And sel asme the ex Délfle orders Dated 7 December 2023 Q Quay Chew Soon Judge Mgh Cuurl uI MeIeyeI Fenang CMI Di siun NCVC 1 Qgflfli John Klmc Ban LeI (Mssvs Iemeu Klloo A /lssucmlas) Ierme Avnflcarus src Nan Mohammad Aysem hm Hap Humm‘ src Numl Famana mm Khahd‘ src Erma wam mm: mm Keflee‘ src um Syazwzm MIII Abdul Azlz (Almmey General‘: Chambcls) Ierme P’ Pmnosefl Innervener Ung cmn Kye and am 116 Wow {Mews P090, Cllnn 5 Ung) lnr me 2m Pmpoeea Imuvenen 22 em mmqsmymz-eveI. «mm. Sum nmhnrwm be HIGH m mm .. nr1gIn|HIy mm: dnuumnl VI nFIuNG puns! Dalarn perkava ln|Er alla Allnan 92 Kaedan 94 dan vile! alla Aluran 5 Kaedah 5 Kaedan — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 [Rules ol Calm 2012) Between Davld cnean Sang cnye Mlohael cnean Sang Jln Dr. Khaw W001 Soon Appllcanls And Tan Slew Jon So Mlau Sang Lea wally Tan cmn Hemg (Pemegang — pemegang Amanan Awam Llam Hood Tong cnm sang Tnuan) . . Proposed lnlervenersl Respondenls >mmg Gmlmds ol De lnlmducuon 1 These lwu maners were heard logelnev (culleclively “os"), namely: La) an ex pane Ollgmallng Summons No FA-2JNCv<2-BM-D5/2923 1‘1“ on am an an exvana Onglnltlng Summons No PA—2ANCvCr747—D5/2023('2" as“) 2 am os concern a lmsl known as ‘Llam Hood Tong Cher sang Thuan’ (“said trust") The sald lrusl was eslabllshed under a deed of Indenlure used 3 3 ml and a codlcll dalad 5.3.1941 execuleu by one chsan Leong Kean ('dlI:I:sad'). 3 The sand (lust pennin to low pleas: of land known as (1) Lcl N 491 under Geran No 2oa4a,( Lol Nu 492 under Geran No 20:49, Na. 292 under Gemrl No. 5935 and [N] Lul Nu. 960 under Gerarl 2027:, all m Saksyen I. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Tlmuv Laull Pulau Plrlang (collectively ‘I:nds”). m hMnw/fi5lRLy.HmzEIRYuly “Nair smnl ...n.mn n. n... m mm .. mn.u.y snn. m.n.n vu nrlum pmul 4. The I‘ and 2"‘ Appricanvs are beneficiaries nf the estate of the aeeessenn They are me green grandsons vflhe deceased 5. The Applicants had omenneo me lollawmg coun orders on an ex pane basrs (Lx>4\ec1nve\y ‘Ix pen. ordlrs (I) m|he1“OS, nex vane mde¢di|ed s n 2023 r1-ex rum ernnerr unaer mu 1!‘ ex on 2 under. a declamlmn was orennea man nne sero mm rs a Drmle nmsn (and nm e Duhhn: cnernnaene wen. men on nr-e avuunds M maunnem med 3 a 2D23MIhe Cowl MADPGIL and In) m Ina 2'» as‘ an ex Dana onoeroaneo 27 e 2023 (ernenoee on 24 1 2023) n'z«< u n-no ovduf) Urnoer nne rv ex me nrder e rseaerenron was gvamsd nn.n nno Apphcanls be ippmmed .s me nmsnees onne sand nmsn. Am Ihnnlve Aunnneernns be regnslzmd as me vvaollemrs ollhs landi. s. The proposed nnnerveners Ned apphcalimns no mlervene m me 05 and |o ssl enme nne ex pane omers There are [we sens of proposed Inlerverners. The men pmpased nnnervener no me Annorney Generavs Chambers nus"; 7 The second se| of pronoseo mnerveners cumuvnse al Vaur nmerveners 1“lrnlIrVIrnon”) They are me nrusnees 0! me lands (3) me n" and 2» nnnervenere were apponrnnao on 12 3 mm by: Panang mgr. Coun oroer ournneo by no An snno J. my nne 3~ and 4" nmwenen were aomemn byme AG no he eopormeo as me trustees Mme lands. we e Vellerlmm the AG aenea n5 : znnor Ln) nne and en: aw Imerveneri were appomlad ailhslmnus ems nernns by 2. Pernaml man courn oroer mauled by Wong Teen Meng 4 an 1 5 mm and nor on il 13 s 2923, me nu ma 2m lnlelveners were snnu me veunslsved owners on me norms, In nnenroenecrny esme Kmslees Mme sero nrusn 3 Annogenher, nrnere were six applncauons belote me Namely- In) m me 11‘ 05 an e Mme onappnneauonoaceo a a 2023 moo by melnnervanars lar leave no Imervene eno no set asroe live 1“ ex pane uIder1Enc1usme an on 3 ruonroo on appVII:a\uzn dated eazaza men! by Ihe AG ner leave no mlervzlva and no sen nsnde IIne1“ex pane mer nznenosmo 9)‘ 5 srn nMnwn5nRAy.nrm/Enkrewv «we. s.n.r mnmrwm .. wed in may r... nflmnuuly mm: dnuamnl VI mum WM 111.7 a nmme cf appH::al\on daled 29 9 202: filed by me Anmrcarrrs (M mspnsal on a pmm at 1am umar OIusv14A no the Rules cl Conn 21:12 V1: a ws the AG (Enc\o5uve 191‘ (M a Helms av aapmurorr daled 2992n2a rm by we Apvhums dm aapom on a palm waw under oraarm MINI Rulesaicmm 2012 ms n yrs Il1e\Merveners(Erw1usum 217, (hi m the 2'4 us 1.; n mute olapplmsmn dam: 5.v zmvm um. Imurvenersimleava lo Intervene and m sm awe ma 2~< ax pane arder 1Enak1sMm :51, and 11.; a mhcu L11 applscamn dated 29.9 202: Wed by ma Apn|1canI: war «arm.» on a mum av law undav Drdav HA 471015 mm M Count 2912 (EnrJnsure1Bt 9. On 27.11.2023, Igave leave |o Ihe pmposed mtervenets (0 mlervene in me as Furlher, 1 sel aside lhe ex parle orders, I am dismissed ma Order 14» appnmamrrs men by the Appnrcarrrs Here are me gruunds 0! my d2c151on. Background lam: The 1971 05 10. 1n 1971, the grand uncle ov me 1-‘ and 2"-1 Aaplicams, together wrm elhsrlamnly members, made an apphcalmn to the Penang High Court via Origmallng Summons No. 357 011971 (-1911 05“; 11 The 1971 OS soughllorlhefollowmg reliefs. -111 mu lhn um: and herednamams new kmwn as >1a1a1rrg 491, 492‘ 292, 293 and 1615) mm Subdlmvon 1‘ Nnnh Ea:|D|s|m:1 Penang vnum ave held upon 1nenms1rcraa1.¢ undern am am 3 u m dnland In vomr pm um. mmuary unit of think many Knh an a (21 A1|emaIlve|y,maH7\e sane W515 be dlclimd 1a have vanes and ma: Ina saro Vnnds be arm ar-u ma pruum dwldsd among Ihe resnduary Vagalen 1.1 111. Dmnomonl sn1au|1n\bew1I\ am: am Cheah Lem Kean doceabsd ' 12 On 2 9 1962, the Fenang High Conn wsmissed the 1971 OS. Vn his grounds oljudgmenl dated 20 5.1952. Muslapha bin Hussain J hek! met me INS! created over me ‘Ends are manlabls lrusl and the princlple of cy- pres apphes There was no appeal agams| are rare decrsrorr ol Muslapha Hussam J 5 sm nun»/151RLy.Arm/Elfitawg “Nana s.r.1...rr.rw111r.. .r... m mm r... nrighuuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum M1 Dis 2015 sun 1: Maxi, in 20:5, the 1“ Applicant niea a civil s n the Penang High coun via sun na. 21-NCVC-4-01/2015 (-2015 um ). Tne 2015 sun was filed by me 1' Appiiaani on oanaii oi riiinseii and ine omei beneiicianes of me asxaia anne deceased. 14 me 2015 suit spugrii ipi ma following ialieis '(a) a uaciaiaiion inai an subssqunnl sciians and I or noun pruceodings and] DV iuaginam ma amen made mnlrnry In H s Ong'salderdn|ed 29 March iaaa iwniai cnmnnsed lhe aVnlemen|iDnefl OMEIS aaiaa 9 Jana-Ely mi. 2 sevxainpei isez i2 Sememheffllfli. 16.JariuaN zone and 1 May min pe aeoiaiaa nail and vumi (bi niai ins axacullan 0| im oiav dalsd 7 May zrm mm by Jushcl Wang Yam Meng as sliynd pending me aispasai nuns urexenl autumn in max in iiuams cl Linm Head Ton: CNX Sena Thuani Amariah Kehallkan I\Wem' apppiniaa vine any sapsaqiiam pmsis bu miiimn: 15 The cause oi aciion oi me 1“ Apphcanl in me 2015 suit was based on his conceniion inai iris lands beiong lo his privaie iamily irusi, After a lull vial, ins Psnang Hign Com dismissed me 2015 suit on 22.3 2019. Ahmad snamir hm Moria saueii J awarded coats oi RMi5u,uoo in the iniamaneis. And cas|s nl RM5D,000 io ina AG. who had been sued as the em dalendanl in ma 2:315 sun 16. In his grounds or judgment dated was 2019 Ahmad snaniii J ruled against ine 1“ Apphcaril on me following gwund iai the «'4 Aapiiaanrs Sim In aiaini ma iams, an the basis inai may ais unasi a pnvi|e iamiiyinm, is band by ms judlcaia and Iiiua asio;-psi, and mi ins mm cnuisa undu in. llvdenlum aaiaa a 3194‘! V! a puaiia cnaiiiahie inisi. ma rial a niwaie Vamily imsi The ggfiai 159 17 The 1"App|icanI appealed in ma Cuurh11Appea| againsuna decislfln pi Ahmad snanni J vide civii Appeai Nu P—G1|NCvC)|W|—159—D3/2019 ('AvnonI 1597). on 27 2.2022, me coun oi Apnea: dismissed the 1" Appiiaanrs appaai. The grounds oi iuugnieni ciine com in Appeal aaieu 3.3.2023 is iepaiiaa as David Chsah sang cnya (bung/Hg xnis acnon for N hMnwI9§\Rly.Hm/EIRYa\fl “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be UIQG a may i... nflmruflly MIMI dnuuviml Vfl nFiuNfl Wm! and on behalf or himself and the Derleficlar/es of the estate 0! cheah Leong Keail, deceased) y Sn Mrau song 5 Or: and other appeals [2023] 3 MLJ 726 la The court at Appeal dtsmlssed the 1" Apptlcahts dam to the lands on the ground that hts clalm is barred by res ttmtcala and estoppel. Aggneved wlth the deelstoh at the Courl et Appeal‘ the 1- Appllcaht filed an applloatlen tor leave to appeal to the Federal court via clvil applreatlen Nu 0B(f)—74-U3/2023(P) oh 24.3.2023 The 1“ Applleaht later wtthdrew the leave appllcallon by filing a hettce ol disoorlllrluance dated 25 4 zuza tn the Federal court. 19 The soltoltprs vepresentlng the Applteahts lh the os hereth, re Messrs lsmatt Khoo A Ass/scales‘ were acllhg ter the 1" Applicant tn the zuts suit Ur||l| the trrteryehers ehtatned a court order to remove Messrs tamatt Khoo A Assoclate and we partner, Mr John Khoo Boo Lat, lrorn repreeehttng the 1'' Applteaht The reason was due to epnlllct at thterest The present os 2c The 1-‘ Appllcant, tclgelther wtth the other two Appllcahts, ttled the 1-l 05 oh so 5 2oz: and the 2“ as on 22.5.2023. both on ah ex pane hasls. lh the 05, they laid clalm tn the lands that were the suhtect matter of the earlrer two suits Namely up the 1971 os betore Muetaphe Hussalh J. and (ll) the 2015 sult before Ahmad shartru and the Appeal 159 med by the 1“ Appllcanl. The Appttcants proceeded to ahlatn the all pane orders wttheut the lthewledge ot the AG and the lnlarveners 21. Here are my reasons Ior allowing the prupnscd imerveners to intervene in the es and tor aettthg astde the ex parte orders Ovggr 15 rule 6 2 (I2) ot the Rules at court 2ot2 22 UrlderOvdev15 rule 6(2j(b) of the Rules ot ceurt 2012, the court may at ahy stage at the pmoeedlngs order that the proposed tntervehers be added as panles This IS to ensure that the matter ts ellectuatty and ootnpls|ely adludlcaled upoh And tor the issue related to the rellet alarmed by the appttcahts to be justly and eenyentently tletermtned 23. I am eattahed that the proposed lhtenreners have a direct legal rhrerest In the matter th the ease ol the AG, he ls the oustpdiah pl publlc charllabls |rusI under seetloh 9 ot the Government PvuneedltlgsAc1 1955 In the case of the tntervehere, they were the reglstered owners and a rrt hMhw/fifilfikyflm/EIRYuly “Nair a.rt.l In-rlhnrwlll e. u... M van; r... erthr.ll.y Mlhln dun-vlnhl y.. nFluNG mar (mslees of ms wands. -mm they were remaoed by me Apphcams pursuant to me ex pane orders. 24 The Applicants mad the OS (or declaralxons aflectmg the Wands and ula‘ ’ng the ‘ands, but wimuul naming the proposed mlerveners as S pany. And pwceeded Io uhlzm me ex pane uvders I cunssder ms to be an abuse 0! the pmcess ol OOLII1 Hence. I] \s applopriale (D aflow the pmposed InlsNeners' appncauon to Intervene. Abuse otcmm Qmoess by me Applicants 25 The Federa\ Courl m Mansmn Pmpemes Sdn Bhd v Sham Chm Yen L ors [2021] 1 MLJ 527 at 542 — 543 relleraled lhe general pnncwmss an ex pane apphcalmns as Inflows‘ “[35] A: a generanme, no om: would be mac tn mu prujudiu on pmy unless ne rm 2». oppommify a/wag hurdm as/um However ex pans apphcatrons an rvaagmsed as runes:-my and annmonexs m oenzm cwcumxtanccs As ahservedby /mac: ./m Thomas A Edison Lm 1/Bu/Ioc)<(1912) 15 CLRd7§atp Aav Them rs z pmmarypvenpl gowrrwlg me animlmstvalrun o(1usm=e,LhalrIa man rs lo be condvmnodurmeurfl, and mum, is . ganuml mic, rm ommnoum on mm in an. pm/mime ols pafly unless he has me oaporlunrly oraemg huud m drlvnnu em muances occur where/uslfcs could not be done amass me sumac! mans! of the sur! wen preserved‘ and, 1/ ma! rs m danyar cl deurutllon by one parry, 0! yr mmsdrabm or 5000115 Gamay: D5 mlmmenl, me other may com to Illa Calm and ask rs: us vnlarpcsmon awn m the Ibsvnca L:/Ins apponam, on am gonna mm may would Wows araalsr Iruushu man Instant actran Eutwhen he dun: :5 and!/1e Caunls zsked tn dixruylrd um um: nqulnmml or mm»; m olnor side, the pafly mavlng lncws . most semws responsibility - 25. From me prewous suns med by me «~ Apphcanl and me mvulvemsnt uflhe sohcrlors for me Apphcams m the prevmus suns, |hey are iullyaware mat may are seekmg a snrmlar relief as (haw forebears In me 1971 es and me 2015 suI| In hum Ihase previnus smls, Ihe Applxcanls and (hex! lorebear did not succeed to obtain an uvderdedaring me wanes to be men !am1Iy’s pnvale (rust land The 1“ Apphcanfs Appea\ 159 agamst the Hwgh Court asmsmn m me 2015 sum was dismissed by me Court at Appeal on me ground M res pmucaxa Z7 Howe»/ev, the Ap l‘r.an|s persxsl byfihng the OS. Bul this mus. wnhoul naming the proposed imervenels as a parly \ regard that as an abuse 07 the com‘: ex pane pvccess Whaleverlhewr m\evpr2|aIIun ‘s oonoermng 9 sm mwnsuzwms-am. «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnumml VI mum pom! me grmmds or mgrnenl cl |he Courl 0! Appeal in me Appeal «as, me os should never nave peen filed on err ex pane basls 2a The Appllcants should rlal have excluded lhe proposed inlerveners lrorn me 05 me proposed lnlerveners are clearly lrrleresled pames All along, they have bee ' cllved ln lhe dlspule over the lands ln real, as reeenfly as 3.3.2023, when lnegreurms nfludgmenlallhe counomppeal In the Appeal 159 was dellvenad 29. The 1“ Apphcam had me ppppnunily la challenge me deuslon ol me calm ol Appeal lrral was rendered in me Appear 159. wmcrr had amrnrea me Hlgh cpurveaeelalon ln ulsrrriss ng rns olarm Io remuve |he lnlerveners as the |ms|ees ol the lands However, me 1“ Appllcanl uplad |o wllrraraw ms leave applleallon al lrre Federal calm. As such, we ruling of me zuls sun as well as me rullng 04 me Appeal 159 slands so. In me us and melr aifldavll In suppprl, lne Appllcanls selenwely nrgnlrgnleu certain paragraphs nflhe grounds 01 luagrnenl ol |he Cuurl of Appeal In lrre Appeal 159 And (hereby clalmed that [here Is a “declaraInn' made by the Cum 0' Appeal in Ihelrlavcur 31 Thls appears al pamgraph 9 or me Applrcanls amuanl ln suppnn amnneu on as 5.202: (Enclosure 2), ‘ rr reads -9; lzerrmrrprr ~ Pemnhorl Dermal urlluk mslaksarlakarl lminih nevsendlnan Llam Need Tana Chm Sang Thuarl msvlglkuh Iupuluun lhhkanuh luyusn lomuln pongllyllhaun hshlwi Amnnnh Llnm Hmd -renp cnar serv; man Ialah amanail persenplnarr- 32 However, the sealed order 0f the Conn oi Appeal in me Appeal 159 are rlol corllaln any suerr ‘dec|aralIon". The sealed order ol the Conn of Appeal VI me Appeal 159 oonlalnsd only me lnllowlng lerrns ‘(a7 Rayuan Pslayu eaalan ar Ialak, (la) Km sebarlyak RMJILDUD no sacara global urlluk klllgi ~\lgn xeslwzzm 596—l)3/2019, w.u2lNcvc)lA;.me.n4/zore. l=—m WCVCNWH ss- aalzmm, dl bayar kepafln nespanaen laerlarna semngga Kellnla lmakluk Kepad: bzyav-In nlnkalur flan (C) Kns sebnnyakRM10,0D0 noel bzyarkapad: Ruponden Keenan.- 33. The Applreanls hrgnlrgmed cenaln pans at me gmunds cl luagrrrenl pl me coun pl Appeal In paragrapns [so] — [55] Hauever, lne App ms mu rm hlghhghl lnal ulllrnalely, me 1-‘ Appllcanrs Appeal 159 was 10 r~ hunw/fifilfilyflm/EIRYu\y “Nair s.n.l mmhnrwm rs. LAIQ4 m mm r... nnglrrnuly mum: dnuuvlnnl vu nFluNG pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-24NCvC-747-06/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) DAVID CHEAH SENG CHYE 2. ) Michael Cheah Seng Jin 3. ) Dr Khaw Wooi Soon PENCELAH DICADANGKAN1. ) TAN SIEW JOO 2. ) SO MIAU SONG 3. ) LEE WALLY 4. ) TAN CHIN HERNG

Leave to intervene and to set aside ex parte orders – Whether abuse of court process – Whether breach of natural justice and fundamental right to be heard – Whether claim is barred by res judicata and estoppel – Whether finding of the Court of Appeal on private trust is obiter dicta.

13/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=fdf0c984-65fe-4c46-89fd-dbc4b514e896&Inline=true

13/12/2023 15:57:46 PA-24NCvC-747-06/2023 Kand. 53 S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N hMnw/f5lRkyJ/dvEtRTolg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal u—2mcvc—7n—o6/2023 Kand. 53 12/12,2122: name In the High Com 0! Malaya in Penzng 1n the State ov Penang, Malaysm Ong atlng summons Na FA 24NCvC—631 5/2023 Da\an1 pevkara Amanah Persendman L1am Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan lndenture Cheah Leong Kean berlankh 5.3.1941 Dan ua1am coma: Amanah Psrsendxrian Mam Hood Yong Char Sang Thuan Cheah Lenng Kean beflankh 25.11.1933 Dan Da1am Alssan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan benankh 3.3.2023 man Yang Am HMR Abdm Kanm. HMR s Nanma Balan den HMR Lvm Chang Fang Dan Dalam Ir\|Br aha FEIBVIQQEH 56, $0 — $5 Nasan Penghakvnan Mahkamsh Rayuan Mendeklarasikan dan I alau Fmdmg av Facts Liam Hood Tong Chm Seng man umam Vndenlure benankh 6.31941 dan Coma! bertankh 26.11.1933 Cheah Leong Keah ialah Amanah Persendman Dan Dalam perkara berkenaan Harlanah Lot 491 da1am Geran No. 20345. Lo(492 dalsm Gsran No. 20349, 1.01292 dalam Geran 5935 dan Lot 93:: aa1am ssran No. 20273 kesemua d1 Seksyen 1, Banner Georgelmm Daerah ‘nmur Laul. Pulau Pmang Dan Da1am psrkara Pevlarmkan Pemegang Bam un|uk Amanah Persen man Mam Hnad Tang Chor sang Thuan Dan Dalam nerkara mer aha s A5, A3, 59 Akla Pemegang Amanah 1950 m r.m»s1amm-ava1u “Nana s.n.1...1a.m111... 3.... w my 1... nrW\ruH|:I mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum M1 Dan Da\am perkara - pefkar-a dalam pevunlukkan da\am Kanun Tanah Negara Dan Dalam perkava Kasdah 92 mlsr aha Kaedah 94 dan Kaedah 5 mleraha Penman A Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 (Rules ov com 2012) Between 1 David Cheah Sang Chye 2 Miv:hae\ Cheah Sang Jvn 3 Dr Khaw Wnui Soon .. Applcams And Psguam Negara Mmaysxa Pmposea lnlervenerl Respondent And 1 Tan siew Jan 2 50 Man Song 3 Lee Wally 4 Tan Chm Hemg [Pemegang . pemegang Amanah Awam mam Hood Tong Chor Seng Thuan) Proposed lntervsnsrsl Respondents Heard uogen-er wi\h \n ma Hwgh Court 0! Maxaya m Penang In me S(a|s 01 Penang Malaysia Ongmg ng Summons N F’ cm 47 6/2023 Dalam Penman Deklavasx Mahkamah Tmggl Pmau Plnang benarikh sezoza Mendeklarasxkan Amanah Lxam Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan adalah sa|u Amanah Persendlnan (Fnvals Trust) m nun»/~5\RLy.Hm/Elfimy mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! dlsrnlssed Based on me ground thal me 1-‘ Appllcanrs clslm. lnal ma lands are under ms larnlllrs pnvale lrusl, IS barred by res judrcara. 34. ll would have been meal penrnenl lpr lne Appllcarrls lp rnglrllgm paragraprrs [es] — [57] of ma grounds pl ludgrnanl pl lrre courl pl Appeal. wnlan reads 156] Thu), w. agms wl|h ma lnlalvm1a(Iun|hn|wns advnnced by me Awellarll more US However, we Agpul: mm by msorr A: sum: In puaprapvr 55 almve Cuncluslorl [571 M lrra result. In: Appvllx In Imus-li wllh ears as Plarnly‘ lne cpun dl Appeal neld mat the 1“ Applrcanrs appeal did not succeed ldr lrre reason as slated in paragraph [56] pl me grounds ol ludgrnem Trral has relererrpe no me lam man we Court pl Appeal nad amrrned lne llnding ol the dean below regarding res ]udlca|a. And an oral ground, had dlsmrssed lrle 1" Aonlrcanfs anneal. as Al paragraph [56] 04 mar gmunds pl ludgmeru. me cpun or Appeal s|a|ed ‘[55] Om rmlrrrmrprr ad mare. Ahmld Shlhviv bin S.II|Ih'x llrralrrg on In judlcall is ldlqulln ur dilmln .III rm mm xpmnls or Davld crlearl serrp Chye peldre us we as 2 and os 3 c.lmle| be srrsralned wrrerr 5Ul| l lalle Yhnlagn slrlclly rrrrrreeessary hm ldr oomp|e|eness lrr me sake er pub|lcIrl|aIu51‘ we wlll deal wnrl me pallles‘ rlval subslannvs comsmluns an mralrrar me Lands are sublsdsd lo a publlc chanlable mm orvlIva|e1Ns|' Breach ol Natural Jus e and lne F nggmgnlal Rlglrl In be Heard 37. Trra Federal court ln Dr Lourdes Dave Raj a/l Culuz Dulai Ra] V Dr Mrllon Llml slaw Wall & Andr [2020] 5 MLJ 135 relleraled lne well — esrapllsrrad legal pnrlclpls lnal an order made agarnsl a pany lrr breach or ms mrrdarnarrlal rlgnl |a pe rreard ls a breacrr dl namral lusllce wlrlclr renders the order a rrulmy and llaple rp be sel aslde 3:. The Federal Courl sald lal page 198‘ mm -1231:» me firs! quesllorl prlaw, or Lauroes relred an III: on: pmdrrrarrpy an Thamba xaurrdan 5 Am)! v D s c Bank and 5 Ana! [lass] r MLJ an (:5; lMmlarlL1y) rd mm IN DOM! la mcogmu mar ll ls a branch drrralrrral /«slim no: lo accord or Lwmls ms rrgm in be rrrard Murlfandy rs BMMOUIY lor me well - srltlud pnrlclpls prraw mar .rr err4.r mud! ngnfnsl a party Irl bnacn ofllls r 1 SN hMrlwIr5lRly.Hm/EIRYalg “Nana Smnl mrrlhnrwlll .. .r.... M M», r... nflglrullly mlhln dnuurlml VI nFluNQ pmul furldlmurlln right tn [:0 ud is bnncll ornarur-llusuee ll nndort in- me: . rrulhry Ind is tllbll re ea sat asm I351 The semi-id respenaenla eeuneelsuornmee mlmue was no Dfljudfoe to or Lourdes nor being given notice or the nmial review proceed/W5 and/nor ma eppenuniry ta bl naere ar lhe same‘ on ma beer mar Dr Loamas was new were me Pmtlrmrlary lnaulw cernrnlrree am: the we, and me would alm- pmusadlrlgs before me we was below me Nlyli courr arid Court‘ a(Apuoa/ m we mdlnral ravrew proceeding: we rem: rm aorllurllran as me pnnmplea oi nzmrauustica er. not sensm by reason L1lDr Lourdes having me eaponurnry lo dsland hmlsullill me domastlc Inqlmy praoeemngr me new to M rmrre on ma plrflnullr Incl: or rm Insunt appeal, exrerma to all new of me pmcxlding: wmen alveerea mm, am: lnrs irwuaes tllnudlclatprmeedngs me Cour! omppeai wilri mspscl orvsdiri rialconsldsmlg Mn miscarriage ornrerne surrerea by D! Loumcs man mmpaseu a lmdmg elgurlr on him annraemclea ms llgnl re Do new in ms eeranea lo nnly numng in a plea or rrutrgelien more me we - 39 Having tailed to obtain the renal he craved in me 2015 suit and me Appeal 159, the 1“ Applicant elected to relriigeie the same issue via me as herein lain on an ex pane basis that tailed to respeu the pmposed inierveners right to he heard. 40. ii is my linumg mar the ex pane arders eereinea by me An were made in breach ol me pmpusad interveners' tundamentai right to be neere. such breach or naturai iuslice, in my opinion, renrlers me ex pane oraere null and void‘ and liable to be set aside. M. The lnlervenere were me regisrerea owners and trustees atthe lands, Imtii mey were replaced by the Apelieerris pursuant ie me ex pane orders. The Applicants are tuily aware that the iritervellers were me registered uwners and trustees ol the lanes Morecver. the 1“ Applicant had attempted in ciaim the lanes in the 2015 sun and in the Appeal 159, but are not suuzed. 42. The solicitors tor the Applicants, Messrs Ismail Khon & Associates and its partner Mr John Khou Eco Lai, were at one point representing the 1" Applicant In the 2015 suit The knowledge ot the sellcitals Is imputed en the 2" and 3~= Applicants In one lriattel 43 As the registered owners and trustees of the lands at the material time, the inlarveners had a direct isgal Interest in the lands Thus‘ the ex pane eraers nblained by the Applicants had enemy ellecreu me illtevesl 07 the tnterveners By not naming the intervenels as H pany and proceeding ex pane, the Appllnants had denied nerurel justice to the :2 sm huriw/l5iRly.Hm/Elfitoiy «en. s.n.i nuvihnrwttt r. u... M mm the nltgtlrnttly MIMI dnuminlrl VII .nuue pnlui lrllerveners. In me case ol the AG, he has been prevenled lrorn carrylrlg OIJI nle duiy as lrle cuslodlan cl me said lrllsl. In lrle Dfemlsesl me preposed lnlsrveners‘ appllcallorl lo lrllerverle and lo eel aslde lrle ex pane orders oplalrled by the Appllcarlls ought Ia be allowed. 44 The Federal cdllrl ln Manelpn Propermsllpra) rllled lrlal an ex pane ordercarl always be se| aslde. And when an order was oulalned ex pane, lne nnnelple ol lllrlclus omclo does not avbly Trle Federal colln sald (at page 543 - 544): ‘[42] me EOIIII lnok mle Mme Drelmlefll Dmclloe amoml DVSc1l(x1lIers|D Wucaed ll. an ex pane raenlon In rllaxlrv; aw|lca1lorlslorTDDiItrado dascllpfrorl order) urlaev 5 la cl lle rm [Travis Dasmptrorv Ac! 2M1] ll war «ulna lrlel male was Reliving wlellg or lllagal ll. such a WII:1lD!.!Im)S ln. aflacwd perm Velillll Ihe rlght bu applyw $€|a$IdB an ex pine mo lal para: [59] a [£2]; All ax Dam oldur un ml-ys be sel Islde Ina . noun Is not vllmllr ewlcle lo revlew a ma omallled ex pane anrlollurr Delleded nle nurll oval. enecled person lo army to rel erlde an ax pm me lr a llgrll wrllcrl exlsll averand abovelhs elrlerclull l1msdI€$ aulleul. In nlrll ml Is llxllelly wrlal ln. apptllams dld ln lnla can In me Hlgrl COM?‘ belawl lfley nnplled In lrllervelle nnd la 59.1 nslde rrle ex pane mo- Tne Appllcarll 05 la. barred by Ree Jlldlcala and Eeloppel 45. ln me 2n15 Skill‘ «re 1" Appllcarll represented the henellclanes M the esla|e enrle deceased Tne deceased rlad crealed me sald lmsl aver me lands lrlal formed ole bone uloorllenllon unne zms sllll ln lrle 2015 sull, me 1" Aopllcanl clelmed lhal the sald Irusl ls a pllvale lanlily lfusl, and rlel a publlc crlarllable lrllsl. 46. me calm 01 Appeal rlad dllly eerlsldered lne basls oi |he 1“ Appllcanrs clai ms Appeal 159 Trlls ls rellecled al paragraprl [27] pl lne grdllrlds dl llldgnlerll dune colln cl Appeal, wnlen reads. 1271 lrl sull 1, Davld crleul seng crly. mlllallded |hl| ln. lllllll vlfltellby me Tmlilnr appelrlled nle lrllee sans as llllsleee Io hullfl lne Pagnfla runled ‘LL-Em Hand Tlng Cmr seng rnllerr rwnlerl ln cnlrleee lranslallarl lneml anfiesllal wolshlfl hall or allarl allprled wlln crllnese cllllllre and ellslarll as lesllned by me experlwrllless. Dr Ian AI Eaey ls al Dflvak mm nllslrlomed Dytlva Taslatar havlrlw clearly observed lrle rllles adalrlsl pevvalllllllls lrl respecl ul lrle |Vu£\ our lrlll nlllldlng or he Pagoda and plwlslarl ellllllds ll; ulllld ll ~ 47 In eppoelng lrle 2015 Suil, me pmposed lnlerveners asserl max me said lrllsl crealed over me lands ls a pubhc charilable lrllsl And lhal me l 3 SN hMrwI95lRly.Hm/Elfitalfl “Nair Smll nurlhnrwlll be UIQG In may l... nflfllnnllly ml. glam. Vfl .rllllla Wm! 1-‘ Appttcartrs 2015 sutt, ctatnung tnet the lands ts under a pnvale tarntty lrusl. ts barved by res judtcata ana esmvner. 4a. This is rettectea at paragraphs [31] and 133] at the grounds at tuagnteht ot the court at Appeat, which reads. “tau tn oppostttart sa Klau Son‘ rat chang, ran Srevntoo, tee watty and Tan chtrt Hemg natlsnlvely wttnI:r- pantenaaa that the tnaertture ptatr-ry evtnoed a publlc ch ’ blnnnlhecattse Mme presence attha cvuclalwolds -utwrr trust to attuw attpersprrs who progsss ms suuahrsr rnlrgron In warshrp arm parrarrrr ralrgmua cammorvss ur mniurmtry wrtn trr. t9tmdIn:1 mlfgmn at the sat: pagoda" In the trtnartture [33| tt u atsp arnpnasrsea tnatay vtnue ouurttcs Musuphs rt ssltnsdecman matte an 2- septentaer 1962 pursuaru ta ntgh Cnurl at F. -lug Ongtnalmg Summons Na. 357 cl 1971‘ the iubpem rnatterarra tenets saughl tn the sun are barnd by us tuntcata srta ulnppll “ 49 The Conn pt Appeal rutaa that the I" Appttt:aht's 2015 stttt, on aenatr at the beneflciartes at tne estate at the deceased. was barred by res tuutcata. This appears at paragraphs [54] ana [55] ot the grounds of tudgrrtent at the Courl of Appeat, whtch reads‘ 1541 cpnseauernty, we nrta that there ts rte mluilnnlhm by Justin Ahnua Shlrlvlain Sallnh who hlld that suttt ts haw-d by us lndlcala try resuarr cl Jusnca Mttsuphs Hnssatlfs aeotstort auteu 2 saptarrtasr tan: In trns resped we turther find and note that Jumcn rttturtspna Husssrns dectstnn tnat I5 evtdewed by ms ground: at judgmlnl dllad 2a Attgus| tsaz terrtatns vatta norwtthstanotup nu kn praar ms never drawn up by etrher at me pamu Dumtam to o :2 r to at me Rutes at the mph CattrI198I1.AI are as we are mncamedt me aeerstan ol Jusllcs Mustapha Huiutn has Devi ttnmmnkably rnatte and that s attrhar matters here [set our afllrmallon 51 Jun’ Alumna Sh tutr hln sattews llnfllnq on us tuatuta II afluqulh In dlxmlsl an Inn mu Ippuli or new chaan seru; Chyn aetare us the os 2 and os 3 cannot be wslalnsd when Sml I tarts maugh slnnlly urmeoessary put tor porrtptatsrrasr tn the take at pttbltc uttetest. we wttt aaat wtlh Ins pames‘ rtust auastarrtrve mnlemiorts an whether the Lands are suotactau ta a pupttc ehsrrtaate Imsl at nnvale trust " so The present 05 Mad by the Appttcahts is the third attempt by the beneltciianes at the estate at‘ the rtepeaaea Ia tay ctatrh lo the lands Based on Ihe ecnlenlton that lhe Wands are (hetr IEVIIIIYS pnvale INS1 lands ll ts my findvng that the as hevetn is srrrtitarty barred by res judtcala and 8510999‘. IA SIN hunw/fifitfilyflm/Elfituty «war. s.r.t mmhnrwm r. u... m van; t... nngthnuly sun. dnuuvtnnl VII .nurte amt 51 Tne cuun nas power under section 11 av lne Schedule pv me Couns ovaudicalure Ac11964|u disnriss1ne Applicants‘ clarrn on me ground vnel lne dispule over me lands is res ludlcala pevween them and ine proposed Inlerveners. The said provision reads 111 Resludlcala Puwsv 1o dlimlu or may prlvusdlrvgs wnsrp me rnsner in qusvstlnn is res ludlcnla bulwurl vne |>iVlI51,or men by mason p1 rnulucrplrcre, pv pmceedlngs in any aeurrs ine pmceedlngs dugnr nm lo be mminued 52. on res judlcals, me Caurl ov Appeal nad reacned lne vollawlng conclusion at paragraphs [51] - [52] av their grounds at ludgmem: 1511 Aller due curlslderfillun, we are in me vlew lml special clmumslames which exclude rne upnlrcemn allesludlcaln or issue esropnel are dnly alllacted updn rne nlslnrlvv dernensuaung lne rnresnpld redurrevnenl ov nleqaiiw. Vick 0' lullsdldlon urnaua wnrsn has occaxloned in me onainal a:|larl Nonevnsim, ms piarnlriv may mil be denied lne oppollunny In oulsus me vmn udlurl N specpl cl-purnsranm dlnjlze lnsnr ll urnusrvurvne plllmflm dn sd PM in irlolhelwny. spuprsl pnaurnsvenpss flu mi Brent: 5 new ullngary warvanlmg rne nmsull M a vresn anion hm operere In deny lne DuIsm|almeV|esV1 serum norwrrnslanmnu lllewalflyv lack M iurlsnmnn or vraud nas been nrads mn ms is seen in cnss Pok cnoy lsuwa) wnere lne nesn anion premised on naud was sliuwea 1a procesd became n was vauna, on me veal: and snpunrsunm pv me use (ml 1| was urllus1 var lne plaln|M|hu1llI|o prulrv on in. lraud 1| perperrersd an lne mun [52] Based on rne veas never II is Dial?! 1r1a|Davld Chsah Sena cnye nsrlner pleaded IVIEQIIW1 lack av iunsmupn nor vraua la ruslrvy Hm lnsI1|u|lon uv sun 1 Na also norluedad virus is no case aulhonly 1ns1 public cnanuele uusl and /or private lNs| am a specrsl I:l|agnry Wham in. duclnna nl .es ludlcam puglrl nm vp nvmy * 53. Slrloa lne sumevn mafler av lne Applicanls presenl 03 and me 1-‘ Appllcanfs 2015 surl penarn to me same lands, and are based on lne sanre cause pv aciipnl vaeis, issues and relieis, I firm ma| lne App|lcanls' claim aver 1ne lands IS paned by res ludll:a|a The finding av lne Ccurl ov Aggeal on g ’ ale (ms ’s obiler male 54. Tne decision o1 me ceun ol Appeal in me Appeal 159 nae decided lna1 me 1-‘ Applicant’: claim [0 ins lands, on the argument lnel lne lands are under a pm/ate 1arnilylrus1end not a public cnarnanle lmsl. Is barred by res ludlcala Tnal is the ratio deciderldl oi the Courl av Appeal Tne 1“ Applrcanl cannol now seek any relievand claim me lands again, using the same argunvenl lnal lne lands are under a pnvale Iamlly lrusi 1 5 sm nunwvvslfikydlm/Elkrulv «mu. s.n.1 ...n.mn r. .1... e may r... uvnn.l-r mm. mmn VI srlulva v-mxl 55 eranleu lnal ma cam 91 Appeal men pmseeded lo pm 9 men Vlsws ocncemlng lns lnlarpralallpn of the lndsnlure. ln mus vagam, me caun pl Appeal agreed wllh lna argument advanced by me 1“ Applicam lnal lne sale lmal ls a prrvale lmsl 56 In thelr grounds of judgment, me com :2! Appaal sam: -{s»:1nu.s,wa ale ol ma vlaw mal lna -ma nature of lna lms| ln ouasuorl have will depend on me corlilruwon pl lna Cudul ma lndenmm opmsxlually rem aaalnsl ms backdrop nl cnmaaa cllllllm and suslmn see Hm Vlk cnal s Hay vaw Tang 5 Anal [1952] 2 Ml.) 221 so {am We have aavslully man daules 10[a)lnd lllmmalms coma: and clause llal — (cl av lne lmanvms and um nm the raslamrs dammam lmamnn V! la have me Pagoda bum as a amaulsl anaasual nall lanna Taslztzoru «amlly and aaspamama lp wnrshln ancsslms as uaslman by ms sole axpsll wllness Dr ran Alfiusy VII declphellng me name uamlalanly mm lauaanalapanlsausayvong (hall) cm sang tancsston Thuan lallan Llim Hand Yhnna Cher Sena man xlmlvg mgemer meanlx Buddhlsl anpaaual nall / allaroiworshlp [ell ln afldmun, the Teslainr navm anvmmaa nus ln-as sum ml nm me Exaculuvjln nnple-namnlswlsnss unuama lmenlurv nmnaalsnlwlln cnlnssa wnura nnd cuslflm on Dulldllvg ansawal wurshlp nall l BN3! »ma.a.n responsmlllly I5 vested only an nula llnenge mn lna same Teslzlors surname mesa are commonly done by weallhy cnlnase lamlllas ln cmna. Yarwnn And Malaysla aocuvdlng us Dr van wnomwa am sallsraa Ii an amply quslflied experl on lnls mmerbnsed on he! numculum unas [n21 Be Ina! as II may‘ we in nnmml (ha! lheve ls alsa lmsnllpn mlna Teslnml m pemlll all psnana who nmless lns Budflhlfl mlnglon lo wmmp and peflnml rsllglaus cualnanlas VII oonlanvllly wlln ms auaunm valiglun .n me pappaa We mwnver «nu ma: mls ls ma rsslamrs Iewlsnt Intvllmn xubamlnaled In n-a darI\4nBn| lnlzmlun ol pulualng an ancuual wurshlp nall / anal pamculany zw mm usmg lns word 'aIlvw‘ .n cllusu Mb) Mlhe lnslenme [ecu Cormanuemly am slnce lna Teslalnrr dominant Inlsnlmn IS to have lne Pagudn ml: as An ancaml wan-p nan /altar. wl find nu: ma mm which In: bean cnatcu for mu purpou um um conulllm a puhlhc chlrlubln lmanlpllowlng Slv Han Nu: m. V um Klm sang a. Ann! [1955] 22 MLJ142 male wnmon J nalu as fnllawx , wlm regalfl lo Ihe anoeslval npuss mwannlp l| I: clenr Ihrs was a snnna for lnmlly purpasas, and I do ml flunk l|l euenllal pm/ale nalma V5 uflsuad by the pmvmon my me dnvlbullon al alnls nr loud |a pool tvavnllvs DY la alher pool psrwns wtm mvgm came up Worship an ms house or Irv: In me vlninlty, Var I lsal ma pnmslan was oon|empl:4ed by ma same: pnmnly as aflordmg «manual asslslance to an adlvlly 01 gm mm W cnnnecuorl mm lna ancsslval house and ml as an aulxmnce cl . pananal namra lp ma allmmpn 15 sm hunwlvfilfilyflm/EIRYaln “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. l... M mm .. anan.u.y mm: dnuuvlnnl VI arlum puns! pl ms oondmorl pl me your suns rlslghboulmud ar av lmpnvlnshtd llmarlntx passlng lnrpugn n lvlnn vltw n wind nel only ll lnsrs an nbsenne pl e gsnsrsl snsnlslsls rnnssnlsn ln rupecl nllnn lnlsl. hm n my pprrnen II has rlal lnsl mulls e4emen| wrnsn n rehglmls Vusl charkable In law rnllsl possess tsllnrollrv opnlsa. 06 [1949] AC 426‘ [msl 1 AH an my I have mashed me corlclusmns, aeponlmly lrlal ms mm In rvsaacl 0' ">9 wwlr "lawn Wssesslrlu no uenelal cnarnaple -nlenllen, ls s walla cnsnlabls (rust ml lr-al lns mm -n vewed or ms amewzl hou pl wprsrnp cannnl es r-psnlsu es snanmals, andls|ham1uu,nu\|am mu lampmsrs easel) [Ml Mnleaver ln Re Nun. asseassa llsssl MLJ as, ll was held lnal In be a chamy ln law, me lrusl rnnsl be eslnbllshed lor purposes wrnsn ave sxclnswsly cnamaple. see also Nal sang Nlarly v rrrs Tnmasi mlns Pvasblflhrlan crnnsn ln slnqspcvs Reqlllered L ols [was] 3 MLJ 311 we Ivvlaln unmnvllwad lrnn me 1. nor had rnlsnuaa ls aslapllsn a llusl whlch was In be exclusively snssnnsls I351 ln me nrenrlses, we one and held lrlal lnere ls no Qensml erlanlapls lnlernnn ny |he rsslanpr |u mvesl lne Lands luv purposes m vuhgluul chamy psr-srally rrrs Irunwllichwu uutnfl bylhn Yuulo s masons. . privlh «run man Is lncapapla pl Cy-was upon hllure puns lrusl sanlrary tn mar as laund Ind nsla by Juallce Alnnns Shihm bln Salleh win concurred wlln Justine Muslavha Hussaln" 57 The courl pl Appeal oplnea lnal me said Irusl is a prlvate Irus1 Bu\ lhal eonnnenl was made ln pesslng. Hence. apller alcla. Tnsl llrrding was npl essenllal vol lne aesnnon nl |he calm ol Appeal ln lne Appesl 159 Nsvenneless, lne ceun ol Appeal maugnl ll dsslrahle lo provide llselr views, given me rwal conlenllcns ol me panies on «ms palm 53 lrl the own words onhe Courl oi Anneal- -[551 Our almrrnallsn m Jnmloe Anrnsu snsnnr bln sallens finding on Iusludlcala Ii aasquals In msnnss all me was appeals ev Damd Chalk Sung Shy: were us hr: cs 2 and cs 3 cannot be snslsrnss wharl sun I lsrls rnellqn nticlly ulul-I:-Illly hullnv cnmplmmvlsl in lns sake er puhlm nneresl we wlll flul wllh um a mu‘ flnl snhslnnllw cnnumlons on wrmhnr c Lands as suns-em: Ia - vuhllc I:hu(uNI lmsl or vvlvann lmst’ 59, ll ls nlsln mat me coun cl Appeal had smnneu Ihe llndlng ollne courl below regardlng res lualcale The Court or Appeal lnerelore dismissed lhe 1" Appllsanrs Appeal 159 on me ground 0! res judlcala. Tha| IS me rsllo decldendi so The Courl v1 Appeal expllcnly slaled that I\ IS unnecessary to deal wlln me rrvsl canlenllor-s ol whelher the lands are sublecl lo a nu 17 srn hunwlvslfilyflm/Elfitulfl “Nana s.nn luvlhnrwm n. UIQG e may r... nrwlruuly mm: dnuavlml VI nrlum Wm! eharltable trust cl! a private iainily trust Albeit that the court oi Appeal proceeded to do so, ior cempletenesa in the sake oi public interest 61 Given that the iinding oi a private ttust is not essential to the decision oi the Court oi Appeal in the Appeal 159, the saine rriust pe regarded as opiter dicta. Accordingly, it does not have oinding weight. otherwise. tithe hnding that the said tmat is a private trust was the ratio decidendi. the 1' Applicant's Appeal 159 would have been alluwed Obviously that was not the outcome oi the Appeal t59. 62. In an earlier pan oi their grounds pi iudgntent, the coun oi Appeal had teocg ed that the cure issue peicte them is the issue oi res iudi ta. And that tnetv decision on the said issue will determine whether it s necessary ior them to decide on the remaining findings with regard to the nature and consequence oithe s trust 53. Paragraph [431 oi the grounds oi ludgineni oi the Court oi Appeal reads ‘[43] we have therelaie in the exerase oipurappetiate iiirietiaii reviewed tustice Ahiiiad snahiir pin sallahs ground at iudgiiiaht in the light at the contentuaiis rlnw advarioed more us it iserris me at Inn we iiiust iiist detdnriiiia tho iliidtnp en ru iudtcat. as this will :1 rate whether it raiiiaiiia lllcilllvy thmaitar to daiaiiiitiia IM rsriiatiitiip tiiidliigi an the IIIIMM and coiiaaguiiiess oittia Imst as tiedueathed trvthstestatpr- 64 Aiter considenno the issue of res iudieatar the court oi Appeal amrnied the iindtng oi the court tielow un ies iudicala. Arid stated in no uncenain terms that such aiiirrnation is adeqtia|e lo dismiss the appeal oi the 1“ Applicant in the Appeal 159. it iotlows that it was not necessary ior the cpun di Appeal to decide an the nature and consequence oi the said trust 65. To sum up, the ‘by the way‘ opinion ol the Court at Appeal, I e. that the said trust is a private tmst as not essenual to their decision in the Appeal 159. The ratio decidendi is the amtrnation oi res ludicala On the ground at res iudicata. the 1" Applicants Appeal 159 was dismissed 36 In the preirllses,|ne1“ Applicant and the ulnar Applicants cannot be permitted in telitigate the same claim over the lands, based on the same argument Ina! the lands are ttrtdera pill/ate farnlty trust. In the Appeal t59, the coun oi Appeal had clearly decided that such a claim by the 1" Apptlcant is barred by res ludtcata IN 7tMnw/ifilfilyflm/ElRYoly "Nate Sunni nuvlhnrwlll be u... M van; i... nnglrrnllly MVMI dnuuvlnrll v.. aFlt.ING ptmxl Order NA app canons try the Applicants 67 To add irisilli Io iniury, irie Applicants filed uirae applicalions ior dlspusal oi me riiarrer on a point ol law umler Order 14A oi the Rules oi coun 2012. Trirs was done in me mids1 oi exliauslirig affidavits and mine wriuen submissions in re5Decl cl irie Dwnosed lmervenllon ario senirig aside bl me ex Dane onlers The Applicanls contend lriac iriere is no quesliori on lacls And «rial ilia 05 is sullable lo be disposed oi hased on a pbirii bl law under Order 14A ol me Rules ol couri 2012. as Under Order MA onrie Rules o1Cuun2D12, lhe oourl rriay dS|8mIIl'Ia ariyqueslicn cl law or consrrunion pl ariy docurrienl wriere ll appears that -(a) sucri queshon is sunable lor oelerrriiriaiiori wilriom rrie lull lllal ol Ihe amipn, aria lb) sucli oeienninalian will finally delerrriine irie enrire cause or insurer or any claim or issue therein 69. Trie Cmm D1Appeal in Pelmleurri lilasrbnal and y Ksralaan Negeri Tereriggariu & arrozlrer appeal [zoos] 4 cm 337 ar 353 observed (hsl a preliminary quesiiori srioulo be carelully and precisely irariien so as to avoid crmcunies cl rnierpreialion as no what is crie real allesliuri wriicli is being nrdered la be Irled as a preliminary issue 7n. Tne Order MA appllcatlon filed by me Applicants reads ‘1 a ri wi Amarl-III Llim Ham Tang Char serig mrari ia lsri suaiu arrianarr Derserldlrlnn flan bukan ariiariar. khalml l mni (‘public l crranlaple lrusrl din ialari dl buiusliari, dl lelflllkani ai eapali darl l arau oi perlirnoanakari irieiaiui kflerallflarll fakla aari ilrroana ~ urldang pl-ri rinamiarriari Rayuarl pain 3 3 ma uteri Vang AM Hakim Mahkamih Rayuin Abdul rurini NMR s Nariuia aslari can HMR Llm crrprig Fang uunra sehulal sunm ln|er airs oi pererippari as sehlrlgga as Alasari penqrrmnisn isrpuria cl Judgmenll 2 Dan aleh nu. seriula prriali dan rriana » rriaria Mahkamah dl lkull uleh keplllusan Marirarnari Rayuan mslulul doktrlrl rnlaraiia Remludlranla‘ car. siare Diciili 3 Juflem flu‘ Msrilmrisn prpa memplmyal kuasa Immk melurlzskanllrldakarl irii berdasmkarl A MA u llsl Kaeflah —K3Bd’iih Mahkamah znlz 7i In my view. llie Order MA appllcallon filed by me Applicanls is unwarranted and rleleciiye. Firsl, lriere is plainly a dispute oi lacls and findings‘ which mlgm to pe ventilated through an iriler panes nearing oi «lie os To , me oispuie wini regard in me eiieel pl me nnclings ol me courl of Appeal in me Appeal 159 Thai issue rias already been brougm Iolhe lorelrorii via me applieaiioris meo by me proposed iriierireriers lb eel is srn hMnwIi5lRly.llm/Elfitalfl “Nana s.r.i nuvlhnrwlll be mad a may i... bflnlnallly MIMI dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl mi aswde the ex pane urders. There 13 na need «or me Appncams to add to the \ayer or lmgalmn by filmg «us Order MA apnlucanons 12. Second. this \s not a wnl aclncm wnere were wm be a full trial. This Is an cmgmahng summons that win he detidad based on amuavn evidence. men; is already |o be an Inter panes heanng In decvde an the pendmg appucanans tor rmervennon and sewng zswde. Thmwmg an Order HA appncanon Inlc me rmx ws qune unnecessary 73 Third, there was actuauy no queslxon 01 law posed by the Applncanls for \he courts determmahon. Rather than 3 question 07 law. lhe Applicant nns put forward a prayer for the com to aware that me sa \msI \s a pnvale |Vus|, mslead of a public dlamable INS! Bill that is precxsew the Issue ror determination in me pending appncanans mm by me proposed Inlerveners to set aswde me ex pane orders 74 For me reasons above, I dlsrmssed the Or\1er14A applrcanons med by Ina Applrcanns. 75 Inna Applicants msagres wan the decision ollhe Cuurl or Appeal and me mterprelauon mane grounds or judgment onne cuun 0! Appeal In me Appeal 159, the 1“ Apphcanl should have connnuea wan his apphcahan «or weave |o apple‘ to ma Federal Court. 75 lnleresnnglyy the Weave question posed by the Appllcams Included the !aI\awing '\ Whmnsv when the own ul Appam make 2 new Vwndrng on Ian: and law Much wax m:| nan. by me Hugh Court. can the Court nlAwea\ msrmuud (Iva apvul on n.. grmmd oi ..s...a.m-. and esloppa\”’ Costs 77 Order 59 nAs1fl or me Rules a! com 2012 reads’ ‘Hz Cmlsdueln unnecessary clmms or wssues 10 ssr. in) ‘H addmnn la and nol m aeraganon many mm pmulmn .n ma Order. where a party has ram to anamnn any chum ar Issue wmch he has vawsed In any pmoaaunrgs, and has thereby unnecessarfly or umeasonaoly Dmtvanad, or addnd m we was m mmpleuly nl Imsre pvooeedlngs, the Com! may older man the wan cl Ihal pany snnn not be anuma m whola or n. pan, or mm any cnsls cncasmned by man damn onssua m any cnhuv puny man be pmd by hum to ma| unnar parry reqamlan av We mflmme or me muse or maller’ 2o srn nun»/c5\RLy.Arm/Elfitnwg «wn. snrm ...n.ryn .. med m mm .. mn.u.y mm: dnuumrrl y.. mum M.‘ Berkenaarv Hananah Lol N0. 491 da\am Geran No. 20345‘ Lot No. 492 dalam Geran No 20349‘ La! No 292 da\am Geran Na. 5925 din Lot No. 960 dalam Gevan 20273 kesemua dx Seksyen 1. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Timur Lam, Pulau Plnang Da\am nerkara Amanan Parser: an Liam Hand Tong cnar Seng Tnuan Vndenlule cnean Leung Kean benarikh 3 3.1941 Dan Da\am Cndicfl Amanan Perssnmnan Lwsm Hood Tong chm Seng Tnuan cnean Leung Kean benankh 25.11 1935 Dan Da\am perkara Urusan‘ Pemadblran Bayaran Cukax Tanan Temmggak oxen Pemahen » Pemoncn Bsrkenaan Hananah - Hananan Amanah Perssndman |Pnvale Trust) Lwam Hood Tong Chow Sang Thuan henkulan Penman Deklarasx Mahkamah Tinggw Pwau Pinang benarikh 3.5.2023 Dan Dalam perxara Periannkan Pemegang aam unluk Amanah Persendman (Pnva|s mac) mam Hocd Tong Char Seng Tlwan benkulan Penman Deuaras. Mankamah Tlnggv Fulau Pmang s e 202:4 Dan Da\am psrkara Inter ans 3. 45. 45. 59 Ana Pemegang Amanah195O Dan Dalam psrkara - perkaua dalam perunlukkan dalam Kanun Tanah Negara Dan m nMnw»5\Rky.HmEIRra\v «mm. saw ...m.mn .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 71: After lne deolslcn nl llle cpurl al Appeal In llle Appeal lss, me 1“ Applrcanl had med an applraalron lor leave Io appeal lpllle Federal ceurl. aul subsequently wrlrldrew NS Federal coun apphcallon Durlng lne rrearrng, I ouerled me oounsel lor me 1* Applloanl about me reason lor sud’: wllrldrawal The counsel lor lrle I‘ Appllcanl suggesled lrlal ll ls unnecessary lor lllrn lo appeal because llre Court ol Appeal rlad agreed wlllr nls argument llral me sald lnn.l n. a pnvale |rusl ln olller werde. me 1“ Appllcanl lell lnal rlad wnn. ll anylrnng, (he prpppsed lmsrveners shuuld be me ones lp appeal 79 Tnerealler. lne Apnlloancs prooeeded lo file me 05 on an ex parle basis and oblalrled lrle ex lzarle orders Thereby sleallnlly laklng me lands awayl based on lhelr ellegallorl lrlal lrle courl el Appeal had made a dealarallen ln lhelr lavour llral the lands are under a pnvale lannly (ms! l lnrnk llle Appllcanls rlad unneoessarlly and unreasonably pmlracted me nlaller, and esealalecl lrre llllgallpn eosl lcl be lnourred by lne pmpclsad lnlervenuvs an The Appllcancs lunller nled lllree applleallens under order MA ollrre Rules ol courl 2012. oslenslply lo save ludlclal llrne and eesls. Bul lrral ls yet anolner lnalanee ol fihng unnecessary appllcatlnns, and addlng to me costs pl [hears proaeedlngs a1 Havlng regard to me luregulng, I oonsldered ll approprlale lo order lal glunsl oosls M RM5D,DOU lo be pald lo (M lrllervensrs, wllh rupeol lo Enclosure e and Enclosure 2l mill: 1“ cs lnl Iaml wsls nl RMwl0l‘Ifl lo pe pm .a lne AG.wlI1l respeel la Erldnsure 9 and Erlclusule la ln lne 1" 05: and La) global coils pl RM5L7,flDD la be peld |o me lrnerveners. wlln vaspe-:1 ol Enclnsms 15 and Erllimura ls rn ms 2- os concluelpn 32 under order 32 rule 6 ol lrle Rules or cdun 2012. an ex pane order may be sel aslde. I suppose lrle rallonale lor lrral rule ls benause an ex pane order ls grarlled wllnoul lrle benell| el llearrng me elrler sll1e.Thal ls why ‘the party mavlng an ex pane applrcalrpn rncurs a most serlour. raspnnslli y‘ To make lull and crank drselusure, even ol nlarlers wrrlch are ncl| rl llls lavour. l lear me Applloanls have lallen sllon pl suon IN nunwllslfikydlm/Elfirelv “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm re UIQG a may l... nrwlrullly ml. dnuuvlml Vfl nrlurlfl Wm! 63. Now, mm me benem uI hearing suhmssvons Iron: me prcpused inlerveners, I accspnhal Ihe ex pane ordevs were wmngIy granted. I must make (mugs rigm by semng aside me ex pane orders 34 For the reasons above, I gave leave Io the proposed Inlerveners Io Intervene in the OS And sel asme the ex Délfle orders Dated 7 December 2023 Q Quay Chew Soon Judge Mgh Cuurl uI MeIeyeI Fenang CMI Di siun NCVC 1 Qgflfli John Klmc Ban LeI (Mssvs Iemeu Klloo A /lssucmlas) Ierme Avnflcarus src Nan Mohammad Aysem hm Hap Humm‘ src Numl Famana mm Khahd‘ src Erma wam mm: mm Keflee‘ src um Syazwzm MIII Abdul Azlz (Almmey General‘: Chambcls) Ierme P’ Pmnosefl Innervener Ung cmn Kye and am 116 Wow {Mews P090, Cllnn 5 Ung) lnr me 2m Pmpoeea Imuvenen 22 em mmqsmymz-eveI. «mm. Sum nmhnrwm be HIGH m mm .. nr1gIn|HIy mm: dnuumnl VI nFIuNG puns! Dalarn perkava ln|Er alla Allnan 92 Kaedan 94 dan vile! alla Aluran 5 Kaedah 5 Kaedan — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 [Rules ol Calm 2012) Between Davld cnean Sang cnye Mlohael cnean Sang Jln Dr. Khaw W001 Soon Appllcanls And Tan Slew Jon So Mlau Sang Lea wally Tan cmn Hemg (Pemegang — pemegang Amanan Awam Llam Hood Tong cnm sang Tnuan) . . Proposed lnlervenersl Respondenls >mmg Gmlmds ol De lnlmducuon 1 These lwu maners were heard logelnev (culleclively “os"), namely: La) an ex pane Ollgmallng Summons No FA-2JNCv<2-BM-D5/2923 1‘1“ on am an an exvana Onglnltlng Summons No PA—2ANCvCr747—D5/2023('2" as“) 2 am os concern a lmsl known as ‘Llam Hood Tong Cher sang Thuan’ (“said trust") The sald lrusl was eslabllshed under a deed of Indenlure used 3 3 ml and a codlcll dalad 5.3.1941 execuleu by one chsan Leong Kean ('dlI:I:sad'). 3 The sand (lust pennin to low pleas: of land known as (1) Lcl N 491 under Geran No 2oa4a,( Lol Nu 492 under Geran No 20:49, Na. 292 under Gemrl No. 5935 and [N] Lul Nu. 960 under Gerarl 2027:, all m Saksyen I. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Tlmuv Laull Pulau Plrlang (collectively ‘I:nds”). m hMnw/fi5lRLy.HmzEIRYuly “Nair smnl ...n.mn n. n... m mm .. mn.u.y snn. m.n.n vu nrlum pmul 4. The I‘ and 2"‘ Appricanvs are beneficiaries nf the estate of the aeeessenn They are me green grandsons vflhe deceased 5. The Applicants had omenneo me lollawmg coun orders on an ex pane basrs (Lx>4\ec1nve\y ‘Ix pen. ordlrs (I) m|he1“OS, nex vane mde¢di|ed s n 2023 r1-ex rum ernnerr unaer mu 1!‘ ex on 2 under. a declamlmn was orennea man nne sero mm rs a Drmle nmsn (and nm e Duhhn: cnernnaene wen. men on nr-e avuunds M maunnem med 3 a 2D23MIhe Cowl MADPGIL and In) m Ina 2'» as‘ an ex Dana onoeroaneo 27 e 2023 (ernenoee on 24 1 2023) n'z«< u n-no ovduf) Urnoer nne rv ex me nrder e rseaerenron was gvamsd nn.n nno Apphcanls be ippmmed .s me nmsnees onne sand nmsn. Am Ihnnlve Aunnneernns be regnslzmd as me vvaollemrs ollhs landi. s. The proposed nnnerveners Ned apphcalimns no mlervene m me 05 and |o ssl enme nne ex pane omers There are [we sens of proposed Inlerverners. The men pmpased nnnervener no me Annorney Generavs Chambers nus"; 7 The second se| of pronoseo mnerveners cumuvnse al Vaur nmerveners 1“lrnlIrVIrnon”) They are me nrusnees 0! me lands (3) me n" and 2» nnnervenere were apponrnnao on 12 3 mm by: Panang mgr. Coun oroer ournneo by no An snno J. my nne 3~ and 4" nmwenen were aomemn byme AG no he eopormeo as me trustees Mme lands. we e Vellerlmm the AG aenea n5 : znnor Ln) nne and en: aw Imerveneri were appomlad ailhslmnus ems nernns by 2. Pernaml man courn oroer mauled by Wong Teen Meng 4 an 1 5 mm and nor on il 13 s 2923, me nu ma 2m lnlelveners were snnu me veunslsved owners on me norms, In nnenroenecrny esme Kmslees Mme sero nrusn 3 Annogenher, nrnere were six applncauons belote me Namely- In) m me 11‘ 05 an e Mme onappnneauonoaceo a a 2023 moo by melnnervanars lar leave no Imervene eno no set asroe live 1“ ex pane uIder1Enc1usme an on 3 ruonroo on appVII:a\uzn dated eazaza men! by Ihe AG ner leave no mlervzlva and no sen nsnde IIne1“ex pane mer nznenosmo 9)‘ 5 srn nMnwn5nRAy.nrm/Enkrewv «we. s.n.r mnmrwm .. wed in may r... nflmnuuly mm: dnuamnl VI mum WM 111.7 a nmme cf appH::al\on daled 29 9 202: filed by me Anmrcarrrs (M mspnsal on a pmm at 1am umar OIusv14A no the Rules cl Conn 21:12 V1: a ws the AG (Enc\o5uve 191‘ (M a Helms av aapmurorr daled 2992n2a rm by we Apvhums dm aapom on a palm waw under oraarm MINI Rulesaicmm 2012 ms n yrs Il1e\Merveners(Erw1usum 217, (hi m the 2'4 us 1.; n mute olapplmsmn dam: 5.v zmvm um. Imurvenersimleava lo Intervene and m sm awe ma 2~< ax pane arder 1Enak1sMm :51, and 11.; a mhcu L11 applscamn dated 29.9 202: Wed by ma Apn|1canI: war «arm.» on a mum av law undav Drdav HA 471015 mm M Count 2912 (EnrJnsure1Bt 9. On 27.11.2023, Igave leave |o Ihe pmposed mtervenets (0 mlervene in me as Furlher, 1 sel aside lhe ex parle orders, I am dismissed ma Order 14» appnmamrrs men by the Appnrcarrrs Here are me gruunds 0! my d2c151on. Background lam: The 1971 05 10. 1n 1971, the grand uncle ov me 1-‘ and 2"-1 Aaplicams, together wrm elhsrlamnly members, made an apphcalmn to the Penang High Court via Origmallng Summons No. 357 011971 (-1911 05“; 11 The 1971 OS soughllorlhefollowmg reliefs. -111 mu lhn um: and herednamams new kmwn as >1a1a1rrg 491, 492‘ 292, 293 and 1615) mm Subdlmvon 1‘ Nnnh Ea:|D|s|m:1 Penang vnum ave held upon 1nenms1rcraa1.¢ undern am am 3 u m dnland In vomr pm um. mmuary unit of think many Knh an a (21 A1|emaIlve|y,maH7\e sane W515 be dlclimd 1a have vanes and ma: Ina saro Vnnds be arm ar-u ma pruum dwldsd among Ihe resnduary Vagalen 1.1 111. Dmnomonl sn1au|1n\bew1I\ am: am Cheah Lem Kean doceabsd ' 12 On 2 9 1962, the Fenang High Conn wsmissed the 1971 OS. Vn his grounds oljudgmenl dated 20 5.1952. Muslapha bin Hussain J hek! met me INS! created over me ‘Ends are manlabls lrusl and the princlple of cy- pres apphes There was no appeal agams| are rare decrsrorr ol Muslapha Hussam J 5 sm nun»/151RLy.Arm/Elfitawg “Nana s.r.1...rr.rw111r.. .r... m mm r... nrighuuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum M1 Dis 2015 sun 1: Maxi, in 20:5, the 1“ Applicant niea a civil s n the Penang High coun via sun na. 21-NCVC-4-01/2015 (-2015 um ). Tne 2015 sun was filed by me 1' Appiiaani on oanaii oi riiinseii and ine omei beneiicianes of me asxaia anne deceased. 14 me 2015 suit spugrii ipi ma following ialieis '(a) a uaciaiaiion inai an subssqunnl sciians and I or noun pruceodings and] DV iuaginam ma amen made mnlrnry In H s Ong'salderdn|ed 29 March iaaa iwniai cnmnnsed lhe aVnlemen|iDnefl OMEIS aaiaa 9 Jana-Ely mi. 2 sevxainpei isez i2 Sememheffllfli. 16.JariuaN zone and 1 May min pe aeoiaiaa nail and vumi (bi niai ins axacullan 0| im oiav dalsd 7 May zrm mm by Jushcl Wang Yam Meng as sliynd pending me aispasai nuns urexenl autumn in max in iiuams cl Linm Head Ton: CNX Sena Thuani Amariah Kehallkan I\Wem' apppiniaa vine any sapsaqiiam pmsis bu miiimn: 15 The cause oi aciion oi me 1“ Apphcanl in me 2015 suit was based on his conceniion inai iris lands beiong lo his privaie iamily irusi, After a lull vial, ins Psnang Hign Com dismissed me 2015 suit on 22.3 2019. Ahmad snamir hm Moria saueii J awarded coats oi RMi5u,uoo in the iniamaneis. And cas|s nl RM5D,000 io ina AG. who had been sued as the em dalendanl in ma 2:315 sun 16. In his grounds or judgment dated was 2019 Ahmad snaniii J ruled against ine 1“ Apphcaril on me following gwund iai the «'4 Aapiiaanrs Sim In aiaini ma iams, an the basis inai may ais unasi a pnvi|e iamiiyinm, is band by ms judlcaia and Iiiua asio;-psi, and mi ins mm cnuisa undu in. llvdenlum aaiaa a 3194‘! V! a puaiia cnaiiiahie inisi. ma rial a niwaie Vamily imsi The ggfiai 159 17 The 1"App|icanI appealed in ma Cuurh11Appea| againsuna decislfln pi Ahmad snanni J vide civii Appeai Nu P—G1|NCvC)|W|—159—D3/2019 ('AvnonI 1597). on 27 2.2022, me coun oi Apnea: dismissed the 1" Appiiaanrs appaai. The grounds oi iuugnieni ciine com in Appeal aaieu 3.3.2023 is iepaiiaa as David Chsah sang cnya (bung/Hg xnis acnon for N hMnwI9§\Rly.Hm/EIRYa\fl “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be UIQG a may i... nflmruflly MIMI dnuuviml Vfl nFiuNfl Wm! and on behalf or himself and the Derleficlar/es of the estate 0! cheah Leong Keail, deceased) y Sn Mrau song 5 Or: and other appeals [2023] 3 MLJ 726 la The court at Appeal dtsmlssed the 1" Apptlcahts dam to the lands on the ground that hts clalm is barred by res ttmtcala and estoppel. Aggneved wlth the deelstoh at the Courl et Appeal‘ the 1- Appllcaht filed an applloatlen tor leave to appeal to the Federal court via clvil applreatlen Nu 0B(f)—74-U3/2023(P) oh 24.3.2023 The 1“ Applleaht later wtthdrew the leave appllcallon by filing a hettce ol disoorlllrluance dated 25 4 zuza tn the Federal court. 19 The soltoltprs vepresentlng the Applteahts lh the os hereth, re Messrs lsmatt Khoo A Ass/scales‘ were acllhg ter the 1" Applicant tn the zuts suit Ur||l| the trrteryehers ehtatned a court order to remove Messrs tamatt Khoo A Assoclate and we partner, Mr John Khoo Boo Lat, lrorn repreeehttng the 1'' Applteaht The reason was due to epnlllct at thterest The present os 2c The 1-‘ Appllcant, tclgelther wtth the other two Appllcahts, ttled the 1-l 05 oh so 5 2oz: and the 2“ as on 22.5.2023. both on ah ex pane hasls. lh the 05, they laid clalm tn the lands that were the suhtect matter of the earlrer two suits Namely up the 1971 os betore Muetaphe Hussalh J. and (ll) the 2015 sult before Ahmad shartru and the Appeal 159 med by the 1“ Appllcanl. The Appttcants proceeded to ahlatn the all pane orders wttheut the lthewledge ot the AG and the lnlarveners 21. Here are my reasons Ior allowing the prupnscd imerveners to intervene in the es and tor aettthg astde the ex parte orders Ovggr 15 rule 6 2 (I2) ot the Rules at court 2ot2 22 UrlderOvdev15 rule 6(2j(b) of the Rules ot ceurt 2012, the court may at ahy stage at the pmoeedlngs order that the proposed tntervehers be added as panles This IS to ensure that the matter ts ellectuatty and ootnpls|ely adludlcaled upoh And tor the issue related to the rellet alarmed by the appttcahts to be justly and eenyentently tletermtned 23. I am eattahed that the proposed lhtenreners have a direct legal rhrerest In the matter th the ease ol the AG, he ls the oustpdiah pl publlc charllabls |rusI under seetloh 9 ot the Government PvuneedltlgsAc1 1955 In the case of the tntervehere, they were the reglstered owners and a rrt hMhw/fifilfikyflm/EIRYuly “Nair a.rt.l In-rlhnrwlll e. u... M van; r... erthr.ll.y Mlhln dun-vlnhl y.. nFluNG mar (mslees of ms wands. -mm they were remaoed by me Apphcams pursuant to me ex pane orders. 24 The Applicants mad the OS (or declaralxons aflectmg the Wands and ula‘ ’ng the ‘ands, but wimuul naming the proposed mlerveners as S pany. And pwceeded Io uhlzm me ex pane uvders I cunssder ms to be an abuse 0! the pmcess ol OOLII1 Hence. I] \s applopriale (D aflow the pmposed InlsNeners' appncauon to Intervene. Abuse otcmm Qmoess by me Applicants 25 The Federa\ Courl m Mansmn Pmpemes Sdn Bhd v Sham Chm Yen L ors [2021] 1 MLJ 527 at 542 — 543 relleraled lhe general pnncwmss an ex pane apphcalmns as Inflows‘ “[35] A: a generanme, no om: would be mac tn mu prujudiu on pmy unless ne rm 2». oppommify a/wag hurdm as/um However ex pans apphcatrons an rvaagmsed as runes:-my and annmonexs m oenzm cwcumxtanccs As ahservedby /mac: ./m Thomas A Edison Lm 1/Bu/Ioc)<(1912) 15 CLRd7§atp Aav Them rs z pmmarypvenpl gowrrwlg me animlmstvalrun o(1usm=e,LhalrIa man rs lo be condvmnodurmeurfl, and mum, is . ganuml mic, rm ommnoum on mm in an. pm/mime ols pafly unless he has me oaporlunrly oraemg huud m drlvnnu em muances occur where/uslfcs could not be done amass me sumac! mans! of the sur! wen preserved‘ and, 1/ ma! rs m danyar cl deurutllon by one parry, 0! yr mmsdrabm or 5000115 Gamay: D5 mlmmenl, me other may com to Illa Calm and ask rs: us vnlarpcsmon awn m the Ibsvnca L:/Ins apponam, on am gonna mm may would Wows araalsr Iruushu man Instant actran Eutwhen he dun: :5 and!/1e Caunls zsked tn dixruylrd um um: nqulnmml or mm»; m olnor side, the pafly mavlng lncws . most semws responsibility - 25. From me prewous suns med by me «~ Apphcanl and me mvulvemsnt uflhe sohcrlors for me Apphcams m the prevmus suns, |hey are iullyaware mat may are seekmg a snrmlar relief as (haw forebears In me 1971 es and me 2015 suI| In hum Ihase previnus smls, Ihe Applxcanls and (hex! lorebear did not succeed to obtain an uvderdedaring me wanes to be men !am1Iy’s pnvale (rust land The 1“ Apphcanfs Appea\ 159 agamst the Hwgh Court asmsmn m me 2015 sum was dismissed by me Court at Appeal on me ground M res pmucaxa Z7 Howe»/ev, the Ap l‘r.an|s persxsl byfihng the OS. Bul this mus. wnhoul naming the proposed imervenels as a parly \ regard that as an abuse 07 the com‘: ex pane pvccess Whaleverlhewr m\evpr2|aIIun ‘s oonoermng 9 sm mwnsuzwms-am. «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnumml VI mum pom! me grmmds or mgrnenl cl |he Courl 0! Appeal in me Appeal «as, me os should never nave peen filed on err ex pane basls 2a The Appllcants should rlal have excluded lhe proposed inlerveners lrorn me 05 me proposed lnlerveners are clearly lrrleresled pames All along, they have bee ' cllved ln lhe dlspule over the lands ln real, as reeenfly as 3.3.2023, when lnegreurms nfludgmenlallhe counomppeal In the Appeal 159 was dellvenad 29. The 1“ Apphcam had me ppppnunily la challenge me deuslon ol me calm ol Appeal lrral was rendered in me Appear 159. wmcrr had amrnrea me Hlgh cpurveaeelalon ln ulsrrriss ng rns olarm Io remuve |he lnlerveners as the |ms|ees ol the lands However, me 1“ Appllcanl uplad |o wllrraraw ms leave applleallon al lrre Federal calm. As such, we ruling of me zuls sun as well as me rullng 04 me Appeal 159 slands so. In me us and melr aifldavll In suppprl, lne Appllcanls selenwely nrgnlrgnleu certain paragraphs nflhe grounds 01 luagrnenl ol |he Cuurl of Appeal In lrre Appeal 159 And (hereby clalmed that [here Is a “declaraInn' made by the Cum 0' Appeal in Ihelrlavcur 31 Thls appears al pamgraph 9 or me Applrcanls amuanl ln suppnn amnneu on as 5.202: (Enclosure 2), ‘ rr reads -9; lzerrmrrprr ~ Pemnhorl Dermal urlluk mslaksarlakarl lminih nevsendlnan Llam Need Tana Chm Sang Thuarl msvlglkuh Iupuluun lhhkanuh luyusn lomuln pongllyllhaun hshlwi Amnnnh Llnm Hmd -renp cnar serv; man Ialah amanail persenplnarr- 32 However, the sealed order 0f the Conn oi Appeal in me Appeal 159 are rlol corllaln any suerr ‘dec|aralIon". The sealed order ol the Conn of Appeal VI me Appeal 159 oonlalnsd only me lnllowlng lerrns ‘(a7 Rayuan Pslayu eaalan ar Ialak, (la) Km sebarlyak RMJILDUD no sacara global urlluk klllgi ~\lgn xeslwzzm 596—l)3/2019, w.u2lNcvc)lA;.me.n4/zore. l=—m WCVCNWH ss- aalzmm, dl bayar kepafln nespanaen laerlarna semngga Kellnla lmakluk Kepad: bzyav-In nlnkalur flan (C) Kns sebnnyakRM10,0D0 noel bzyarkapad: Ruponden Keenan.- 33. The Applreanls hrgnlrgmed cenaln pans at me gmunds cl luagrrrenl pl me coun pl Appeal In paragrapns [so] — [55] Hauever, lne App ms mu rm hlghhghl lnal ulllrnalely, me 1-‘ Appllcanrs Appeal 159 was 10 r~ hunw/fifilfilyflm/EIRYu\y “Nair s.n.l mmhnrwm rs. LAIQ4 m mm r... nnglrrnuly mum: dnuuvlnnl vu nFluNG pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-24NCvC-631-05/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) DAVID CHEAH SENG CHYE 2. ) Michael Cheah Seng Jin 3. ) Dr. Khaw Wooi Soon PENCELAH 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) TAN SIEW JOO 3. ) SO MIAU SONG 4. ) LEE WALLY 5. ) TAN CHIN HERNG

Leave to intervene and to set aside ex parte orders – Whether abuse of court process – Whether breach of natural justice and fundamental right to be heard – Whether claim is barred by res judicata and estoppel – Whether finding of the Court of Appeal on private trust is obiter dicta.

13/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f7099d1b-54ac-4c56-9a06-02fb5d7d083a&Inline=true

13/12/2023 15:42:51 PA-24NCvC-631-05/2023 Kand. 81 S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal u—2mcvc—s31—o5/2023 Kand. E1 12/12,2122: 1342 3; In the High Com 0! Malaya in Penzng 1n the State ov Penang, Malaysm Ong atlng summons Na FA 24NCvC—631 5/2023 Da\an1 pevkara Amanah Persendman L1am Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan lndenture Cheah Leong Kean berlankh 5.3.1941 Dan ua1am coma: Amanah Psrsendxrian Mam Hood Yong Char Sang Thuan Cheah Lenng Kean beflankh 25.11.1933 Dan Da1am Alssan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan benankh 3.3.2023 man Yang Am HMR Abdm Kanm. HMR s Nanma Balan den HMR Lvm Chang Fang Dan Dalam Ir\|Br aha FEIBVIQQEH 56, $0 — $5 Nasan Penghakvnan Mahkamsh Rayuan Mendeklarasikan dan I alau Fmdmg av Facts Liam Hood Tong Chm Seng man umam Vndenlure benankh 331941 dan Coma! bertankh 26.11.1933 Cheah Leong Keah ialah Amanah Persendman Dan Dalam perkara berkenaan Harlanah Lot 491 da1am Geran No. 20345. Lo(492 dalsm Gsran No. 20349, 1.01292 dalam Geran 5935 dan Lot 96:: aa1am ssran No. 20273 kesemua d1 Seksyen 1, Banner Georgelmm Daerah ‘nmur Laul. Pulau Pmang Dan Da1am psrkara Pevlarmkan Pemegang Bam un|uk Amanah Persen man Mam Hnad Tang Chor sang Thuan Dan Dalam nerkara mer aha s A5, A3, 59 Akla Pemegang Amanah 1950 m G5omsxWkyaanL7xxn10w “Nana s.n.1...1a.m111... 3.... w my 1... nrW\ruH|:I mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum M1 Dan Da\am perkara - pefkar-a dalam pevunlukkan da\am Kanun Tanah Negara Dan Dalam perkava Kasdah 92 mlsr aha Kaedah 94 dan Kaedah 5 mleraha Penman A Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 (Rules ov com 2012) Between 1 David Cheah Sang Chye 2 Miv:hae\ Cheah Sang Jvn 3 Dr Khaw Wnui Soon .. Applcams And Psguam Negara Mmaysxa Pmposea lnlervenerl Respondent And 1 Tan siew Jan 2 50 Man Song 3 Lee Wally 4 Tan Chm Hemg [Pemegang . pemegang Amanah Awam mam Hood Tong Chor Seng Thuan) Proposed lntervsnsrsl Respondents Heard uogen-er wi\h \n ma Hwgh Court 0! Maxaya m Penang In me S(a|s 01 Penang Malaysia Ongmg ng Summons N F’ cm 47 6/2023 Dalam Penman Deklavasx Mahkamah Tmggl Pmau Plnang benarikh sezoza Mendeklarasxkan Amanah Lxam Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan adalah sa|u Amanah Persendlnan (Fnvals Trust) 2 sm G5<xmsxuwyaayL7xxmog mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! dlsrnlssed Based on me ground thal me 1-‘ Appllcanrs clslm. lnal ma lands are under ms larnlllrs pnvale lrusl, IS barred by res judrcara. 34. ll would have been meal penrnenl lpr lne Appllcarrls lp rnglrllgm paragraprrs [es] — [57] of ma grounds pl ludgrnanl pl lrre courl pl Appeal. wnlan reads 156] Thu), w. agms wl|h ma lnlalvm1a(Iun|hn|wns advnnced by me Awellarll more US However, we Agpul: mm by msorr A: sum: In puaprapvr 55 almve Cuncluslorl [571 M lrra result. In: Appvllx In Imus-li wllh ears as Plarnly‘ lne cpun dl Appeal neld mat the 1“ Applrcanrs appeal did not succeed ldr lrre reason as slated in paragraph [56] pl me grounds ol ludgrnem Trral has relererrpe no me lam man we Court pl Appeal nad amrrned lne llnding ol the dean below regarding res ]udlca|a. And an oral ground, had dlsmrssed lrle 1" Aonlrcanfs anneal. as Al paragraph [56] 04 mar gmunds pl ludgmeru. me cpun or Appeal s|a|ed ‘[55] Om rmlrrrmrprr ad mare. Ahmld Shlhviv bin S.II|Ih'x llrralrrg on In judlcall is ldlqulln ur dilmln .III rm mm xpmnls or Davld crlearl serrp Chye peldre us we as 2 and os 3 c.lmle| be srrsralned wrrerr 5Ul| l lalle Yhnlagn slrlclly rrrrrreeessary hm ldr oomp|e|eness lrr me sake er pub|lcIrl|aIu51‘ we wlll deal wnrl me pallles‘ rlval subslannvs comsmluns an mralrrar me Lands are sublsdsd lo a publlc chanlable mm orvlIva|e1Ns|' Breach ol Natural Jus e and lne F nggmgnlal Rlglrl In be Heard 37. Trra Federal court ln Dr Lourdes Dave Raj a/l Culuz Dulai Ra] V Dr Mrllon Llml slaw Wall & Andr [2020] 5 MLJ 135 relleraled lne well — esrapllsrrad legal pnrlclpls lnal an order made agarnsl a pany lrr breach or ms mrrdarnarrlal rlgnl |a pe rreard ls a breacrr dl namral lusllce wlrlclr renders the order a rrulmy and llaple rp be sel aslde 3:. The Federal Courl sald lal page 198‘ mm -1231:» me firs! quesllorl prlaw, or Lauroes relred an III: on: pmdrrrarrpy an Thamba xaurrdan 5 Am)! v D s c Bank and 5 Ana! [lass] r MLJ an (:5; lMmlarlL1y) rd mm IN DOM! la mcogmu mar ll ls a branch drrralrrral /«slim no: lo accord or Lwmls ms rrgm in be rrrard Murlfandy rs BMMOUIY lor me well - srltlud pnrlclpls prraw mar .rr err4.r mud! ngnfnsl a party Irl bnacn ofllls r 1 SN G5(llKxLlVkyaEnL7XXDlDy “Nana Smnl mrrlhnrwlll .. .r.... M M», r... nflglrullly mlhln dnuurlml VI nFluNQ pmul furldlmurlln right tn [:0 ud is bnncll ornarur-llusuee ll nndort in- me: . rrulhry Ind is tllbll re ea sat asm I351 The semi-id respenaenla eeuneelsuornmee mlmue was no Dfljudfoe to or Lourdes nor being given notice or the nmial review proceed/W5 and/nor ma eppenuniry ta bl naere ar lhe same‘ on ma beer mar Dr Loamas was new were me Pmtlrmrlary lnaulw cernrnlrree am: the we, and me would alm- pmusadlrlgs before me we was below me Nlyli courr arid Court‘ a(Apuoa/ m we mdlnral ravrew proceeding: we rem: rm aorllurllran as me pnnmplea oi nzmrauustica er. not sensm by reason L1lDr Lourdes having me eaponurnry lo dsland hmlsullill me domastlc Inqlmy praoeemngr me new to M rmrre on ma plrflnullr Incl: or rm Insunt appeal, exrerma to all new of me pmcxlding: wmen alveerea mm, am: lnrs irwuaes tllnudlclatprmeedngs me Cour! omppeai wilri mspscl orvsdiri rialconsldsmlg Mn miscarriage ornrerne surrerea by D! Loumcs man mmpaseu a lmdmg elgurlr on him annraemclea ms llgnl re Do new in ms eeranea lo nnly numng in a plea or rrutrgelien more me we - 39 Having tailed to obtain the renal he craved in me 2015 suit and me Appeal 159, the 1“ Applicant elected to relriigeie the same issue via me as herein lain on an ex pane basis that tailed to respeu the pmposed inierveners right to he heard. 40. ii is my linumg mar the ex pane arders eereinea by me An were made in breach ol me pmpusad interveners' tundamentai right to be neere. such breach or naturai iuslice, in my opinion, renrlers me ex pane oraere null and void‘ and liable to be set aside. M. The lnlervenere were me regisrerea owners and trustees atthe lands, Imtii mey were replaced by the Apelieerris pursuant ie me ex pane orders. The Applicants are tuily aware that the iritervellers were me registered uwners and trustees ol the lanes Morecver. the 1“ Applicant had attempted in ciaim the lanes in the 2015 sun and in the Appeal 159, but are not suuzed. 42. The solicitors tor the Applicants, Messrs Ismail Khon & Associates and its partner Mr John Khou Eco Lai, were at one point representing the 1" Applicant In the 2015 suit The knowledge ot the sellcitals Is imputed en the 2" and 3~= Applicants In one lriattel 43 As the registered owners and trustees of the lands at the material time, the inlarveners had a direct isgal Interest in the lands Thus‘ the ex pane eraers nblained by the Applicants had enemy ellecreu me illtevesl 07 the tnterveners By not naming the intervenels as H pany and proceeding ex pane, the Appllnants had denied nerurel justice to the :2 sm Gsmnxuveyaayuxxniog «en. s.n.i nuvihnrwttt r. u... M mm the nltgtlrnttly MIMI dnuminlrl VII .nuue pnlui lrllerveners. In me case ol the AG, he has been prevenled lrorn carrylrlg OIJI nle duiy as lrle cuslodlan cl me said lrllsl. In lrle Dfemlsesl me preposed lnlsrveners‘ appllcallorl lo lrllerverle and lo eel aslde lrle ex pane orders oplalrled by the Appllcarlls ought Ia be allowed. 44 The Federal cdllrl ln Manelpn Propermsllpra) rllled lrlal an ex pane ordercarl always be se| aslde. And when an order was oulalned ex pane, lne nnnelple ol lllrlclus omclo does not avbly Trle Federal colln sald (at page 543 - 544): ‘[42] me EOIIII lnok mle Mme Drelmlefll Dmclloe amoml DVSc1l(x1lIers|D Wucaed ll. an ex pane raenlon In rllaxlrv; aw|lca1lorlslorTDDiItrado dascllpfrorl order) urlaev 5 la cl lle rm [Travis Dasmptrorv Ac! 2M1] ll war «ulna lrlel male was Reliving wlellg or lllagal ll. such a WII:1lD!.!Im)S ln. aflacwd perm Velillll Ihe rlght bu applyw $€|a$IdB an ex pine mo lal para: [59] a [£2]; All ax Dam oldur un ml-ys be sel Islde Ina . noun Is not vllmllr ewlcle lo revlew a ma omallled ex pane anrlollurr Delleded nle nurll oval. enecled person lo army to rel erlde an ax pm me lr a llgrll wrllcrl exlsll averand abovelhs elrlerclull l1msdI€$ aulleul. In nlrll ml Is llxllelly wrlal ln. apptllams dld ln lnla can In me Hlgrl COM?‘ belawl lfley nnplled In lrllervelle nnd la 59.1 nslde rrle ex pane mo- Tne Appllcarll 05 la. barred by Ree Jlldlcala and Eeloppel 45. ln me 2n15 Skill‘ «re 1" Appllcarll represented the henellclanes M the esla|e enrle deceased Tne deceased rlad crealed me sald lmsl aver me lands lrlal formed ole bone uloorllenllon unne zms sllll ln lrle 2015 sull, me 1" Aopllcanl clelmed lhal the sald Irusl ls a pllvale lanlily lfusl, and rlel a publlc crlarllable lrllsl. 46. me calm 01 Appeal rlad dllly eerlsldered lne basls oi |he 1“ Appllcanrs clai ms Appeal 159 Trlls ls rellecled al paragraprl [27] pl lne grdllrlds dl llldgnlerll dune colln cl Appeal, wnlen reads. 1271 lrl sull 1, Davld crleul seng crly. mlllallded |hl| ln. lllllll vlfltellby me Tmlilnr appelrlled nle lrllee sans as llllsleee Io hullfl lne Pagnfla runled ‘LL-Em Hand Tlng Cmr seng rnllerr rwnlerl ln cnlrleee lranslallarl lneml anfiesllal wolshlfl hall or allarl allprled wlln crllnese cllllllre and ellslarll as lesllned by me experlwrllless. Dr Ian AI Eaey ls al Dflvak mm nllslrlomed Dytlva Taslatar havlrlw clearly observed lrle rllles adalrlsl pevvalllllllls lrl respecl ul lrle |Vu£\ our lrlll nlllldlng or he Pagoda and plwlslarl ellllllds ll; ulllld ll ~ 47 In eppoelng lrle 2015 Suil, me pmposed lnlerveners asserl max me said lrllsl crealed over me lands ls a pubhc charilable lrllsl And lhal me l 3 SN G5nfl£xUVkyaEnL7XXnl0fi “Nair Smll nurlhnrwlll be UIQG In may l... nflfllnnllly ml. glam. Vfl .rllllla Wm! 1-‘ Appttcartrs 2015 sutt, ctatnung tnet the lands ts under a pnvale tarntty lrusl. ts barved by res judtcata ana esmvner. 4a. This is rettectea at paragraphs [31] and 133] at the grounds at tuagnteht ot the court at Appeat, which reads. “tau tn oppostttart sa Klau Son‘ rat chang, ran Srevntoo, tee watty and Tan chtrt Hemg natlsnlvely wttnI:r- pantenaaa that the tnaertture ptatr-ry evtnoed a publlc ch ’ blnnnlhecattse Mme presence attha cvuclalwolds -utwrr trust to attuw attpersprrs who progsss ms suuahrsr rnlrgron In warshrp arm parrarrrr ralrgmua cammorvss ur mniurmtry wrtn trr. t9tmdIn:1 mlfgmn at the sat: pagoda" In the trtnartture [33| tt u atsp arnpnasrsea tnatay vtnue ouurttcs Musuphs rt ssltnsdecman matte an 2- septentaer 1962 pursuaru ta ntgh Cnurl at F. -lug Ongtnalmg Summons Na. 357 cl 1971‘ the iubpem rnatterarra tenets saughl tn the sun are barnd by us tuntcata srta ulnppll “ 49 The Conn pt Appeal rutaa that the I" Appttt:aht's 2015 stttt, on aenatr at the beneflciartes at tne estate at the deceased. was barred by res tuutcata. This appears at paragraphs [54] ana [55] ot the grounds of tudgrrtent at the Courl of Appeat, whtch reads‘ 1541 cpnseauernty, we nrta that there ts rte mluilnnlhm by Justin Ahnua Shlrlvlain Sallnh who hlld that suttt ts haw-d by us lndlcala try resuarr cl Jusnca Mttsuphs Hnssatlfs aeotstort auteu 2 saptarrtasr tan: In trns resped we turther find and note that Jumcn rttturtspna Husssrns dectstnn tnat I5 evtdewed by ms ground: at judgmlnl dllad 2a Attgus| tsaz terrtatns vatta norwtthstanotup nu kn praar ms never drawn up by etrher at me pamu Dumtam to o :2 r to at me Rutes at the mph CattrI198I1.AI are as we are mncamedt me aeerstan ol Jusllcs Mustapha Huiutn has Devi ttnmmnkably rnatte and that s attrhar matters here [set our afllrmallon 51 Jun’ Alumna Sh tutr hln sattews llnfllnq on us tuatuta II afluqulh In dlxmlsl an Inn mu Ippuli or new chaan seru; Chyn aetare us the os 2 and os 3 cannot be wslalnsd when Sml I tarts maugh slnnlly urmeoessary put tor porrtptatsrrasr tn the take at pttbltc uttetest. we wttt aaat wtlh Ins pames‘ rtust auastarrtrve mnlemiorts an whether the Lands are suotactau ta a pupttc ehsrrtaate Imsl at nnvale trust " so The present 05 Mad by the Appttcahts is the third attempt by the beneltciianes at the estate at‘ the rtepeaaea Ia tay ctatrh lo the lands Based on Ihe ecnlenlton that lhe Wands are (hetr IEVIIIIYS pnvale INS1 lands ll ts my findvng that the as hevetn is srrrtitarty barred by res judtcala and 8510999‘. IA SIN G5mHxL1vhyaEyL7xxmDy «war. s.r.t mmhnrwm r. u... m van; t... nngthnuly sun. dnuuvtnnl VII .nurte amt 51 Tne cuun nas power under section 11 av lne Schedule pv me Couns ovaudicalure Ac11964|u disnriss1ne Applicants‘ clarrn on me ground vnel lne dispule over me lands is res ludlcala pevween them and ine proposed Inlerveners. The said provision reads 111 Resludlcala Puwsv 1o dlimlu or may prlvusdlrvgs wnsrp me rnsner in qusvstlnn is res ludlcnla bulwurl vne |>iVlI51,or men by mason p1 rnulucrplrcre, pv pmceedlngs in any aeurrs ine pmceedlngs dugnr nm lo be mminued 52. on res judlcals, me Caurl ov Appeal nad reacned lne vollawlng conclusion at paragraphs [51] - [52] av their grounds at ludgmem: 1511 Aller due curlslderfillun, we are in me vlew lml special clmumslames which exclude rne upnlrcemn allesludlcaln or issue esropnel are dnly alllacted updn rne nlslnrlvv dernensuaung lne rnresnpld redurrevnenl ov nleqaiiw. Vick 0' lullsdldlon urnaua wnrsn has occaxloned in me onainal a:|larl Nonevnsim, ms piarnlriv may mil be denied lne oppollunny In oulsus me vmn udlurl N specpl cl-purnsranm dlnjlze lnsnr ll urnusrvurvne plllmflm dn sd PM in irlolhelwny. spuprsl pnaurnsvenpss flu mi Brent: 5 new ullngary warvanlmg rne nmsull M a vresn anion hm operere In deny lne DuIsm|almeV|esV1 serum norwrrnslanmnu lllewalflyv lack M iurlsnmnn or vraud nas been nrads mn ms is seen in cnss Pok cnoy lsuwa) wnere lne nesn anion premised on naud was sliuwea 1a procesd became n was vauna, on me veal: and snpunrsunm pv me use (ml 1| was urllus1 var lne plaln|M|hu1llI|o prulrv on in. lraud 1| perperrersd an lne mun [52] Based on rne veas never II is Dial?! 1r1a|Davld Chsah Sena cnye nsrlner pleaded IVIEQIIW1 lack av iunsmupn nor vraua la ruslrvy Hm lnsI1|u|lon uv sun 1 Na also norluedad virus is no case aulhonly 1ns1 public cnanuele uusl and /or private lNs| am a specrsl I:l|agnry Wham in. duclnna nl .es ludlcam puglrl nm vp nvmy * 53. Slrloa lne sumevn mafler av lne Applicanls presenl 03 and me 1-‘ Appllcanfs 2015 surl penarn to me same lands, and are based on lne sanre cause pv aciipnl vaeis, issues and relieis, I firm ma| lne App|lcanls' claim aver 1ne lands IS paned by res ludll:a|a The finding av lne Ccurl ov Aggeal on g ’ ale (ms ’s obiler male 54. Tne decision o1 me ceun ol Appeal in me Appeal 159 nae decided lna1 me 1-‘ Applicant’: claim [0 ins lands, on the argument lnel lne lands are under a pm/ate 1arnilylrus1end not a public cnarnanle lmsl. Is barred by res ludlcala Tnal is the ratio deciderldl oi the Courl av Appeal Tne 1“ Applrcanl cannol now seek any relievand claim me lands again, using the same argunvenl lnal lne lands are under a pnvale Iamlly lrusi 1 5 sm G5<xnnxuvnysanL7xxnl0i1 «mu. s.n.1 ...n.mn r. .1... e may r... uvnn.l-r mm. mmn VI srlulva v-mxl 55 eranleu lnal ma cam 91 Appeal men pmseeded lo pm 9 men Vlsws ocncemlng lns lnlarpralallpn of the lndsnlure. ln mus vagam, me caun pl Appeal agreed wllh lna argument advanced by me 1“ Applicam lnal lne sale lmal ls a prrvale lmsl 56 In thelr grounds of judgment, me com :2! Appaal sam: -{s»:1nu.s,wa ale ol ma vlaw mal lna -ma nature of lna lms| ln ouasuorl have will depend on me corlilruwon pl lna Cudul ma lndenmm opmsxlually rem aaalnsl ms backdrop nl cnmaaa cllllllm and suslmn see Hm Vlk cnal s Hay vaw Tang 5 Anal [1952] 2 Ml.) 221 so {am We have aavslully man daules 10[a)lnd lllmmalms coma: and clause llal — (cl av lne lmanvms and um nm the raslamrs dammam lmamnn V! la have me Pagoda bum as a amaulsl anaasual nall lanna Taslztzoru «amlly and aaspamama lp wnrshln ancsslms as uaslman by ms sole axpsll wllness Dr ran Alfiusy VII declphellng me name uamlalanly mm lauaanalapanlsausayvong (hall) cm sang tancsston Thuan lallan Llim Hand Yhnna Cher Sena man xlmlvg mgemer meanlx Buddhlsl anpaaual nall / allaroiworshlp [ell ln afldmun, the Teslainr navm anvmmaa nus ln-as sum ml nm me Exaculuvjln nnple-namnlswlsnss unuama lmenlurv nmnaalsnlwlln cnlnssa wnura nnd cuslflm on Dulldllvg ansawal wurshlp nall l BN3! »ma.a.n responsmlllly I5 vested only an nula llnenge mn lna same Teslzlors surname mesa are commonly done by weallhy cnlnase lamlllas ln cmna. Yarwnn And Malaysla aocuvdlng us Dr van wnomwa am sallsraa Ii an amply quslflied experl on lnls mmerbnsed on he! numculum unas [n21 Be Ina! as II may‘ we in nnmml (ha! lheve ls alsa lmsnllpn mlna Teslnml m pemlll all psnana who nmless lns Budflhlfl mlnglon lo wmmp and peflnml rsllglaus cualnanlas VII oonlanvllly wlln ms auaunm valiglun .n me pappaa We mwnver «nu ma: mls ls ma rsslamrs Iewlsnt Intvllmn xubamlnaled In n-a darI\4nBn| lnlzmlun ol pulualng an ancuual wurshlp nall / anal pamculany zw mm usmg lns word 'aIlvw‘ .n cllusu Mb) Mlhe lnslenme [ecu Cormanuemly am slnce lna Teslalnrr dominant Inlsnlmn IS to have lne Pagudn ml: as An ancaml wan-p nan /altar. wl find nu: ma mm which In: bean cnatcu for mu purpou um um conulllm a puhlhc chlrlubln lmanlpllowlng Slv Han Nu: m. V um Klm sang a. Ann! [1955] 22 MLJ142 male wnmon J nalu as fnllawx , wlm regalfl lo Ihe anoeslval npuss mwannlp l| I: clenr Ihrs was a snnna for lnmlly purpasas, and I do ml flunk l|l euenllal pm/ale nalma V5 uflsuad by the pmvmon my me dnvlbullon al alnls nr loud |a pool tvavnllvs DY la alher pool psrwns wtm mvgm came up Worship an ms house or Irv: In me vlninlty, Var I lsal ma pnmslan was oon|empl:4ed by ma same: pnmnly as aflordmg «manual asslslance to an adlvlly 01 gm mm W cnnnecuorl mm lna ancsslval house and ml as an aulxmnce cl . pananal namra lp ma allmmpn 15 sm Gsamxxuvnyaapuxxnlug “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. l... M mm .. anan.u.y mm: dnuuvlnnl VI arlum puns! pl ms oondmorl pl me your suns rlslghbeulmud ar av nnpmnsnse rlrnsrsnls passlng lnrpugn n lvlnn vltw n wind nel only ll lnsrs an absence pl e ssnsrsl snsnlslsls lnlzmmn ln rsspssl nlmls lnlsl. hm n my pprrnen II has rlal lnsl mulls e4emen| wrnsn n rehglaus Vusl charkable In law rnllsl possess tsllnrollrv opalsa. 06 [1949] AC 426‘ [msl 1 AH an my I have rsasrrea me corlclusmns, aeponlmly lrlal ms mm In rvsaacl 0' ">9 WWI. Waugh Wssesslrlu no general cnarnaple -nlenllen, ls s walla cnsnuols must but lr-al lns mm -n vewed or ms anoewzl hou pl wprsrnp canrm| es rspsnlsu es snanmals, 2IHdl!|Haliful1,lV|A‘|i7fl ms lampmsrs addafl [Ml Mnleaver ln Re Nun. asseassa llsssl MLJ as, ll was held lnal In be a chamy ln law, me lrusl rnnsl be eslnbllshed lor purposes wrnsn ave sxclnswsly cnamaple. see also Nal sang Nlarly v rrrs Tnmasi mlns Pvasblflhrlan cnursn ln srnqspcvs Reqlllered A ols [was] 3 MLJ 311 we Ivvlaln unmrwllwed lrnn me 1. nor had lnlanded ls aslapllsn a llusl whlch was In be exclusively snssnnsls I351 ln me nremlses, we one and held lrlal lnere ls no Qensml charllama lnlernnn ny |he rsslanpr |n mvesl lne Lands luv purposes m vehgleul chamy psr-srally rrrs Irunwllkhwu uutnfl bylhn Yuulo s amslnss . privlh (mil man Is lncapspla pl Cy-was upon hllure puns lrusl spnlrary tn mar as laund Ind nsla by Julllce Alnnns snsnnr znn Salleh win concurred wlln Justine Muslavha Hussaln” 57 The courl pl Appeal oplnea lnal me said Irusl is a prlvate lrusl Bu\ lhal eonnnenl was made ln pesslng. Hence. apller alcla. Tnsl llrrding was npl essenllal vol lne aesnnon or me calm ol Appeal ln lne Appesl 159 Nsvenneless, lne Ceurl ol Appeal maugnl ll dsslrahle lo provide llselr views, given me rwal conlenllcns ol me panies on (NS palm 53 lrl the own words omre Courl oi Anneal- -[551 Our almrrnallsn m Jnmloe Ahmad snannr bln sallens rlnalng an Iusludlcala Ii aasquals In msnnss all the was appeals ev Damd cnssn Sung Shy: were us In. cs 2 an as 3 ssnnpl be suslsrnss when sun I lsrls rnellqn nticlly ululu:-Illly hullnv cnmplmmvlsl in lns sake el puhllc nneresl we wlll flul wllh um a mu‘ flnl inhslnnllw cnnumlons on wrmhnr 0 Lands as suns-em: Ia - vuhllc I:hu(uNI lmsl or pnms lmst’ 59, ll ls nlsln mat me coun cl Appeal had smnneu Ihe llndlng ollne courl below regardlng res lualcale The Court or Appeal lnerelore dismissed lhe 1" Appllsanrs Appeal 159 on me ground 0! res judlcala. Tha| IS me rsllo decldendi so The Courl v1 Appeal expllcnly slaled that ll IS unnecessary to deal wlln me rrvsl canlenllor-s ol whelher the lands are sublecl lo a nu 17 srn Gsamxxuvhyaanuxxnlvv “Nair s.nn nuvlhnrwm es UIQG e may r... snnn.nl mm: dnuuvlml Vfl srlum pensl eharltable trust cl! a private iainily trust Albeit that the court oi Appeal proceeded to do so, ior cempletenesa in the sake oi public interest 61 Given that the iinding oi a private ttust is not essential to the decision oi the Court oi Appeal in the Appeal 159, the saine rriust pe regarded as opiter dicta. Accordingly, it does not have oinding weight. otherwise. tithe hnding that the said tmat is a private trust was the ratio decidendi. the 1' Applicant's Appeal 159 would have been alluwed Obviously that was not the outcome oi the Appeal t59. 62. In an earlier pan oi their grounds pi iudgntent, the coun oi Appeal had teocg ed that the cure issue peicte them is the issue oi res iudi ta. And that tnetv decision on the said issue will determine whether it s necessary ior them to decide on the remaining findings with regard to the nature and consequence oithe s trust 53. Paragraph [431 oi the grounds oi ludgineni oi the Court oi Appeal reads ‘[43] we have therelaie in the exerase oipurappetiate iiirietiaii reviewed tustice Ahiiiad snahiir pin sallahs ground at iudgiiiaht in the light at the contentuaiis rlnw advarioed more us it iserris me at Inn we iiiust iiist detdnriiiia tho iliidtnp en ru iudtcat. as this will :1 rate whether it raiiiaiiia lllcilllvy thmaitar to daiaiiiitiia IM rsriiatiitiip tiiidliigi an the IIIIMM and coiiaaguiiiess oittia Imst as tiedueathed trvthstestatpr- 64 Aiter considenno the issue of res iudieatar the court oi Appeal amrnied the iindtng oi the court tielow un ies iudicala. Arid stated in no uncenain terms that such aiiirrnation is adeqtia|e lo dismiss the appeal oi the 1“ Applicant in the Appeal 159. it iotlows that it was not necessary ior the cpun di Appeal to decide an the nature and consequence oi the said trust 65. To sum up, the ‘by the way‘ opinion ol the Court at Appeal, I e. that the said trust is a private tmst as not essenual to their decision in the Appeal 159. The ratio decidendi is the amtrnation oi res ludicala On the ground at res iudicata. the 1" Applicants Appeal 159 was dismissed 36 In the preirllses,|ne1“ Applicant and the ulnar Applicants cannot be permitted in telitigate the same claim over the lands, based on the same argument Ina! the lands are ttrtdera pill/ate farnlty trust. In the Appeal t59, the coun oi Appeal had clearly decided that such a claim by the 1" Apptlcant is barred by res ludtcata 18 SN Gfihllflxuvhyafiyflxxflloy "Nate Sunni nuvlhnrwlll be u... M van; i... nnglrrnllly MVMI dnuuvlnrll v.. aFlt.ING ptmxl Order NA app canons try the Applicants 67 To add irisilli Io iniury, irie Applicants filed uirae applicalions ior dlspusal oi me riiarrer on a point ol law umler Order 14A oi the Rules oi coun 2012. Trirs was done in me mids1 oi exliauslirig affidavits and mine wriuen submissions in re5Decl cl irie Dwnosed lmervenllon ario senirig aside bl me ex Dane onlers The Applicanls contend lriac iriere is no quesliori on lacls And «rial ilia 05 is sullable lo be disposed oi hased on a pbirii bl law under Order 14A ol me Rules ol couri 2012. as Under Order MA onrie Rules o1Cuun2D12, lhe oourl rriay dS|8mIIl'Ia ariyqueslicn cl law or consrrunion pl ariy docurrienl wriere ll appears that -(a) sucri queshon is sunable lor oelerrriiriaiiori wilriom rrie lull lllal ol Ihe amipn, aria lb) sucli oeienninalian will finally delerrriine irie enrire cause or insurer or any claim or issue therein 69. Trie Cmm D1Appeal in Pelmleurri lilasrbnal and y Ksralaan Negeri Tereriggariu & arrozlrer appeal [zoos] 4 cm 337 ar 353 observed (hsl a preliminary quesiiori srioulo be carelully and precisely irariien so as to avoid crmcunies cl rnierpreialion as no what is crie real allesliuri wriicli is being nrdered la be Irled as a preliminary issue 7n. Tne Order MA appllcatlon filed by me Applicants reads ‘1 a ri wi Amarl-III Llim Ham Tang Char serig mrari ia lsri suaiu arrianarr Derserldlrlnn flan bukan ariiariar. khalml l mni (‘public l crranlaple lrusrl din ialari dl buiusliari, dl lelflllkani ai eapali darl l arau oi perlirnoanakari irieiaiui kflerallflarll fakla aari ilrroana ~ urldang pl-ri rinamiarriari Rayuarl pain 3 3 ma uteri Vang AM Hakim Mahkamih Rayuin Abdul rurini NMR s Nariuia aslari can HMR Llm crrprig Fang uunra sehulal sunm ln|er airs oi pererippari as sehlrlgga as Alasari penqrrmnisn isrpuria cl Judgmenll 2 Dan aleh nu. seriula prriali dan rriana » rriaria Mahkamah dl lkull uleh keplllusan Marirarnari Rayuan mslulul doktrlrl rnlaraiia Remludlranla‘ car. siare Diciili 3 Juflem flu‘ Msrilmrisn prpa memplmyal kuasa Immk melurlzskanllrldakarl irii berdasmkarl A MA u llsl Kaeflah —K3Bd’iih Mahkamah znlz 7i In my view. llie Order MA appllcallon filed by me Applicanls is unwarranted and rleleciiye. Firsl, lriere is plainly a dispute oi lacls and findings‘ which mlgm to pe ventilated through an iriler panes nearing oi «lie os To , me oispuie wini regard in me eiieel pl me nnclings ol me courl of Appeal in me Appeal 159 Thai issue rias already been brougm Iolhe lorelrorii via me applieaiioris meo by me proposed iriierireriers lb eel is srn Gsamxxllvhyaanuxxnlvw “Nana s.r.i nuvlhnrwlll be mad a may i... bflnlnallly MIMI dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl mi aswde the ex pane urders. There 13 na need «or me Appncams to add to the \ayer or lmgalmn by filmg «us Order MA apnlucanons 12. Second. this \s not a wnl aclncm wnere were wm be a full trial. This Is an cmgmahng summons that win he detidad based on amuavn evidence. men; is already |o be an Inter panes heanng In decvde an the pendmg appucanans tor rmervennon and sewng zswde. Thmwmg an Order HA appncanon Inlc me rmx ws qune unnecessary 73 Third, there was actuauy no queslxon 01 law posed by the Applncanls for \he courts determmahon. Rather than 3 question 07 law. lhe Applicant nns put forward a prayer for the com to aware that me sa \msI \s a pnvale |Vus|, mslead of a public dlamable INS! Bill that is precxsew the Issue ror determination in me pending appncanans mm by me proposed Inlerveners to set aswde me ex pane orders 74 For me reasons above, I dlsrmssed the Or\1er14A applrcanons med by Ina Applrcanns. 75 Inna Applicants msagres wan the decision ollhe Cuurl or Appeal and me mterprelauon mane grounds or judgment onne cuun 0! Appeal In me Appeal 159, the 1“ Apphcanl should have connnuea wan his apphcahan «or weave |o apple‘ to ma Federal Court. 75 lnleresnnglyy the Weave question posed by the Appllcams Included the !aI\awing '\ Whmnsv when the own ul Appam make 2 new Vwndrng on Ian: and law Much wax m:| nan. by me Hugh Court. can the Court nlAwea\ msrmuud (Iva apvul on n.. grmmd oi ..s...a.m-. and esloppa\”’ Costs 77 Order 59 nAs1fl or me Rules a! com 2012 reads’ ‘Hz Cmlsdueln unnecessary clmms or wssues 10 ssr. in) ‘H addmnn la and nol m aeraganon many mm pmulmn .n ma Order. where a party has ram to anamnn any chum ar Issue wmch he has vawsed In any pmoaaunrgs, and has thereby unnecessarfly or umeasonaoly Dmtvanad, or addnd m we was m mmpleuly nl Imsre pvooeedlngs, the Com! may older man the wan cl Ihal pany snnn not be anuma m whola or n. pan, or mm any cnsls cncasmned by man damn onssua m any cnhuv puny man be pmd by hum to ma| unnar parry reqamlan av We mflmme or me muse or maller’ 2o srn Gsamsxuvnyaaguxxmog «wn. snrm ...n.ryn .. med m mm .. mn.u.y mm: dnuumrrl y.. mum M.‘ Berkenaarv Hananah Lol N0. 491 da\am Geran No. 20345‘ Lot No. 492 dalam Geran No 20349‘ La! No 292 da\am Geran Na. 5925 din Lot No. 960 dalam Gevan 20273 kesemua dx Seksyen 1. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Timur Lam, Pulau Plnang Da\am nerkara Amanan Parser: an Liam Hand Tong cnar Seng Tnuan Vndenlule cnean Leung Kean benarikh 3 3.1941 Dan Da\am Cndicfl Amanan Perssnmnan Lwsm Hood Tong chm Seng Tnuan cnean Leung Kean benankh 25.11 1935 Dan Da\am perkara Urusan‘ Pemadblran Bayaran Cukax Tanan Temmggak oxen Pemahen » Pemoncn Bsrkenaan Hananah - Hananan Amanah Perssndman |Pnvale Trust) Lwam Hood Tong Chow Sang Thuan henkulan Penman Deklarasx Mahkamah Tinggw Pwau Pinang benarikh 3.5.2023 Dan Dalam perxara Periannkan Pemegang aam unluk Amanah Persendman (Pnva|s mac) mam Hocd Tong Char Seng Tlwan benkulan Penman Deuaras. Mankamah Tlnggv Fulau Pmang s e 202:4 Dan Da\am psrkara Inter ans 3. 45. 45. 59 Ana Pemegang Amanah195O Dan Dalam psrkara - perkaua dalam perunlukkan dalam Kanun Tanah Negara Dan m G5oMxuvnyaanL7xxn\0v «mm. saw ...m.mn .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 71: After lne deolslcn nl llle cpurl al Appeal In llle Appeal lss, me 1“ Applrcanl had med an applraalron lor leave Io appeal lpllle Federal ceurl. aul subsequently wrlrldrew NS Federal coun apphcallon Durlng lne rrearrng, I ouerled me oounsel lor me 1* Applloanl about me reason lor sud’: wllrldrawal The counsel lor lrle I‘ Appllcanl suggesled lrlal ll ls unnecessary lor lllrn lo appeal because llre Court ol Appeal rlad agreed wlllr nls argument llral me sald lnn.l n. a pnvale |rusl ln olller werde. me 1“ Appllcanl lell lnal rlad wnn. ll anylrnng, (he prpppsed lmsrveners shuuld be me ones lp appeal 79 Tnerealler. lne Apnlloancs prooeeded lo file me 05 on an ex parle basis and oblalrled lrle ex lzarle orders Thereby sleallnlly laklng me lands awayl based on lhelr ellegallorl lrlal lrle courl el Appeal had made a dealarallen ln lhelr lavour llral the lands are under a pnvale lannly (ms! l lnrnk llle Appllcanls rlad unneoessarlly and unreasonably pmlracted me nlaller, and esealalecl lrre llllgallpn eosl lcl be lnourred by lne pmpclsad lnlervenuvs an The Appllcancs lunller nled lllree applleallens under order MA ollrre Rules ol courl 2012. oslenslply lo save ludlclal llrne and eesls. Bul lrral ls yet anolner lnalanee ol fihng unnecessary appllcatlnns, and addlng to me costs pl [hears proaeedlngs a1 Havlng regard to me luregulng, I oonsldered ll approprlale lo order lal glunsl oosls M RM5D,DOU lo be pald lo (M lrllervensrs, wllh rupeol lo Enclosure e and Enclosure 2l mill: 1“ cs lnl Iaml wsls nl RMwl0l‘Ifl lo pe pm .a lne AG.wlI1l respeel la Erldnsure 9 and Erlclusule la ln lne 1" 05: and La) global coils pl RM5L7,flDD la be peld |o me lrnerveners. wlln vaspe-:1 ol Enclnsms 15 and Erllimura ls rn ms 2- os concluelpn 32 under order 32 rule 6 ol lrle Rules or cdun 2012. an ex pane order may be sel aslde. I suppose lrle rallonale lor lrral rule ls benause an ex pane order ls grarlled wllnoul lrle benell| el llearrng me elrler sll1e.Thal ls why ‘the party mavlng an ex pane applrcalrpn rncurs a most serlour. raspnnslli y‘ To make lull and crank drselusure, even ol nlarlers wrrlch are ncl| rl llls lavour. l lear me Applloanls have lallen sllon pl suon IN Gsomxxuvkyaalnvxxnlvw “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm re UIQG a may l... nrwlrullly ml. dnuuvlml Vfl nrlurlfl Wm! 63. Now, mm me benem uI hearing suhmssvons Iron: me prcpused inlerveners, I accspnhal Ihe ex pane ordevs were wmngIy granted. I must make (mugs rigm by semng aside me ex pane orders 34 For the reasons above, I gave leave Io the proposed Inlerveners Io Intervene in the OS And sel asme the ex Délfle orders Dated 7 December 2023 Q Quay Chew Soon Judge Mgh Cuurl uI MeIeyeI Fenang CMI Di siun NCVC 1 Qgflfli John Klmc Ban LeI (Mssvs Iemeu Klloo A /lssucmlas) Ierme Avnflcarus src Nan Mohammad Aysem hm Hap Humm‘ src Numl Famana mm Khahd‘ src Erma wam mm: mm Keflee‘ src um Syazwzm MIII Abdul Azlz (Almmey General‘: Chambcls) Ierme P’ Pmnosefl Innervener Ung cmn Kye and am 116 Wow {Mews P090, Cllnn 5 Ung) lnr me 2m Pmpoeea Imuvenen 22 em esmmuw.,.e.uxxnIo,, «mm. Sum nmhnrwm be HIGH m mm .. nr1gIn|HIy mm: dnuumnl VI nFIuNG puns! Dalarn perkava ln|Er alla Allnan 92 Kaedan 94 dan vile! alla Aluran 5 Kaedah 5 Kaedan — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 [Rules ol Calm 2012) Between Davld cnean Sang cnye Mlohael cnean Sang Jln Dr. Khaw W001 Soon Appllcanls And Tan Slew Jon So Mlau Sang Lea wally Tan cmn Hemg (Pemegang — pemegang Amanan Awam Llam Hood Tong cnm sang Tnuan) . . Proposed lnlervenersl Respondenls >mmg Gmlmds ol De lnlmducuon 1 These lwu maners were heard logelnev (culleclively “os"), namely: La) an ex pane Ollgmallng Summons No FA-2JNCv<2-BM-D5/2923 1‘1“ on am an an exvana Onglnltlng Summons No PA—2ANCvCr747—D5/2023('2" as“) 2 am os concern a lmsl known as ‘Llam Hood Tong Cher sang Thuan’ (“said trust") The sald lrusl was eslabllshed under a deed of Indenlure used 3 3 ml and a codlcll dalad 5.3.1941 execuleu by one chsan Leong Kean ('dlI:I:sad'). 3 The sand (lust pennin to low pleas: of land known as (1) Lcl N 491 under Geran No 2oa4a,( Lol Nu 492 under Geran No 20:49, Na. 292 under Gemrl No. 5935 and [N] Lul Nu. 960 under Gerarl 2027:, all m Saksyen I. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Tlmuv Laull Pulau Plrlang (collectively ‘I:nds”). 4 sm G5(1lKxUVkyaEyL7XXnlDg “Nair smnl ...n.mn n. n... m mm .. mn.u.y snn. m.n.n vu nrlum pmul 4. The I‘ and 2"‘ Appricanvs are beneficiaries nf the estate of the aeeessenn They are me green grandsons vflhe deceased 5. The Applicants had omenneo nrne lollawmg coun orders on an ex pane basrs (Lx>4\ec1we\y ‘Ix pen-no ordlrs (3) m nno was, nex vzme emeoeneo s n 2o23(‘1-ax rum nmnr') flrndev nn. 1!‘ ex on 2 under. . declamlmn was orenneo men nne earn mm rs a Drwne \ms| (and mi e Duhhn: chanlame wet). hassd on nrre mounds on maonnernn nnenea 3 a znzaomne Cowl ompvean, and In) m Ina 2'» as‘ an ex Dana onoeroaneo 27 e 2023 (ernenoee on 24 1 20237 n'z"< u mm entail Urnoer nne rv ex me nrder e rseaerenron was gvamsd \h:| nno Apphcanls be ippmmed .s the nrusnees onne sena nmsn. Am Ihnnlve Annnneernns he regnslzmd as me vvaollemrs ollhs landi. s. The proposed nnnerveners Ned apphcalimns no mlervene m me 05 and |o ssl asme nne ex pane omers There are [we sens 04 proposed Inlerverners. The men pmpased nnnervener re me Annorney Gernera1‘s Chambers nus"; 7 The second se| oi pronoseo mnerveners cumunse al nour rnnemenens 1“lrnlIrVIrnon”) They are me nrusnees 0! me lands (3) me n" and 2» Imsrverners were apponr-nao on 12 3 mm by: Panang mgr. Coun oroer ournneo by no An snrno J. no; nn. 3" am 4" nmwenen were apnmved byme AG no he eopormeo as me trustees Mme lands. we e Vellerlmm the AG aenea n5 : znnor Ln) nne an en: aw Imerveneri were appomlad ailhslmneas ems nernns by 2. Pernaml man courn onoer mauled by Wong Teen Meng 4 an 1 5 mm and nor on il 13 s 2923, me nu ma 2m lnlelveners were snnnn me veunslsved owners on me norms, nn menrcanacn|y esme Kmslees Mme sero nrusn 3 Annogenher, nrnere were six eppnncennons belote me Namely- la) m(h21“OS an e Mme ovappnneauonoaceo a a 2023 moo by nnennnervenm lar leave no Intervene eno no set asroe me 1“ ex pane uIder1Enc{usme an on s ruonroo on appVII:a\uzn dated eazaza met! by Ihe AG ver leave no Nerve»: arm to sen nsnde IIne1“ex pane mer nznenosuno 9)‘ 5 srn G5<xmxxuv>nyaanL7xxm0w «we. s.n.r navnhnrwm be mad on may r... nnnnnr-r mm: dnuamnl VI murna WM 111.7 a nmme cf appH::al\on daled 29 9 202: filed by me Anmrcarrrs (M mspnsal on a pmm at 1am umar OIusv14A no the Rules cl Conn 21:12 V1: a ws the AG (Enc\o5uve 191‘ (M a Helms av aapmurorr daled 2992n2a rm by we Apvhums dm aapom on a palm waw under oraarm MINI Rulesaicmm 2012 ms n yrs Il1e\Merveners(Erw1usum 217, (hi m the 2'4 us 1.; n mute olapplmsmn dam: 5.v zmvm um. Imurvenersimleava lo Intervene and m sm awe ma 2~< ax pane arder 1Enak1sMm :51, and 11.; a mhcu L11 applscamn dated 29.9 202: Wed by ma Apn|1canI: war «arm.» on a mum av law undav Drdav HA 471015 mm M Count 2912 (EnrJnsure1Bt 9. On 27.11.2023, Igave leave |o Ihe pmposed mtervenets (0 mlervene in me as Furlher, 1 sel aside lhe ex parle orders, I am dismissed ma Order 14» appnmamrrs men by the Appnrcarrrs Here are me gruunds 0! my d2c151on. Background lam: The 1971 05 10. 1n 1971, the grand uncle ov me 1-‘ and 2"-1 Aaplicams, together wrm elhsrlamnly members, made an apphcalmn to the Penang High Court via Origmallng Summons No. 357 011971 (-1911 05“; 11 The 1971 OS soughllorlhefollowmg reliefs. -111 mu lhn um: and herednamams new kmwn as >1a1a1rrg 491, 492‘ 292, 293 and 1615) mm Subdlmvon 1‘ Nnnh Ea:|D|s|m:1 Penang vnum ave held upon 1nenms1rcraa1.¢ undern am am 3 u m dnland In vomr pm um. mmuary unit of think many Knh an a (21 A1|emaIlve|y,maH7\e sane W515 be dlclimd 1a have vanes and ma: Ina saro Vnnds be arm ar-u ma pruum dwldsd among Ihe resnduary Vagalen 1.1 111. Dmnomonl sn1au|1n\bew1I\ am: am Cheah Lem Kean doceabsd ' 12 On 2 9 1962, the Fenang High Conn wsmissed the 1971 OS. Vn his grounds oljudgmenl dated 20 5.1952. Muslapha bin Hussain J hek! met me INS! created over me ‘Ends are manlabls lrusl and the princlple of cy- pres apphes There was no appeal agams| are rare decrsrorr ol Muslapha Hussam J 5 sm ssmmw1.,.a.uxxrr1o,, “Nana s.r.1...rr.rw111r.. .r... m mm r... nrighuuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum M1 Dis 2015 sun 1: Maxi, in 20:5, the 1“ Applicant niea a civil s n the Penang High coun via sun na. 21-NCVC-4-01/2015 (-2015 um ). Tne 2015 sun was filed by me 1' Appiiaani on oanaii oi riiinseii and ine omei beneiicianes of me asxaia anne deceased. 14 me 2015 suit spugrii ipi ma following ialieis '(a) a uaciaiaiion inai an subssqunnl sciians and I or noun pruceodings and] DV iuaginam ma amen made mnlrnry In H s Ong'salderdn|ed 29 March iaaa iwniai cnmnnsed lhe aVnlemen|iDnefl OMEIS aaiaa 9 Jana-Ely mi. 2 sevxainpei isez i2 Sememheffllfli. 16.JariuaN zone and 1 May min pe aeoiaiaa nail and vumi (bi niai ins axacullan 0| im oiav dalsd 7 May zrm mm by Jushcl Wang Yam Meng as sliynd pending me aispasai nuns urexenl autumn in max in iiuams cl Linm Head Ton: CNX Sena Thuani Amariah Kehallkan I\Wem' apppiniaa vine any sapsaqiiam pmsis bu miiimn: 15 The cause oi aciion oi me 1“ Apphcanl in me 2015 suit was based on his conceniion inai iris lands beiong lo his privaie iamily irusi, After a lull vial, ins Psnang Hign Com dismissed me 2015 suit on 22.3 2019. Ahmad snamir hm Moria saueii J awarded coats oi RMi5u,uoo in the iniamaneis. And cas|s nl RM5D,000 io ina AG. who had been sued as the em dalendanl in ma 2:315 sun 16. In his grounds or judgment dated was 2019 Ahmad snaniii J ruled against ine 1“ Apphcaril on me following gwund iai the «'4 Aapiiaanrs Sim In aiaini ma iams, an the basis inai may ais unasi a pnvi|e iamiiyinm, is band by ms judlcaia and Iiiua asio;-psi, and mi ins mm cnuisa undu in. llvdenlum aaiaa a 3194‘! V! a puaiia cnaiiiahie inisi. ma rial a niwaie Vamily imsi The ggfiai 159 17 The 1"App|icanI appealed in ma Cuurh11Appea| againsuna decislfln pi Ahmad snanni J vide civii Appeai Nu P—G1|NCvC)|W|—159—D3/2019 ('AvnonI 1597). on 27 2.2022, me coun oi Apnea: dismissed the 1" Appiiaanrs appaai. The grounds oi iuugnieni ciine com in Appeal aaieu 3.3.2023 is iepaiiaa as David Chsah sang cnya (bung/Hg xnis acnon for N G5nfl£xLlVkyaEnL7XXm0fi “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be UIQG a may i... nflmruflly MIMI dnuuviml Vfl nFiuNfl Wm! and on behalf or himself and the Derleficlar/es of the estate 0! cheah Leong Keail, deceased) y Sn Mrau song 5 Or: and other appeals [2023] 3 MLJ 726 la The court at Appeal dtsmlssed the 1" Apptlcahts dam to the lands on the ground that hts clalm is barred by res ttmtcala and estoppel. Aggneved wlth the deelstoh at the Courl et Appeal‘ the 1- Appllcaht filed an applloatlen tor leave to appeal to the Federal court via clvil applreatlen Nu 0B(f)—74-U3/2023(P) oh 24.3.2023 The 1“ Applleaht later wtthdrew the leave appllcallon by filing a hettce ol disoorlllrluance dated 25 4 zuza tn the Federal court. 19 The soltoltprs vepresentlng the Applteahts lh the os hereth, re Messrs lsmatt Khoo A Ass/scales‘ were acllhg ter the 1" Applicant tn the zuts suit Ur||l| the trrteryehers ehtatned a court order to remove Messrs tamatt Khoo A Assoclate and we partner, Mr John Khoo Boo Lat, lrorn repreeehttng the 1'' Applteaht The reason was due to epnlllct at thterest The present os 2c The 1-‘ Appllcant, tclgelther wtth the other two Appllcahts, ttled the 1-l 05 oh so 5 2oz: and the 2“ as on 22.5.2023. both on ah ex pane hasls. lh the 05, they laid clalm tn the lands that were the suhtect matter of the earlrer two suits Namely up the 1971 os betore Muetaphe Hussalh J. and (ll) the 2015 sult before Ahmad shartru and the Appeal 159 med by the 1“ Appllcanl. The Appttcants proceeded to ahlatn the all pane orders wttheut the lthewledge ot the AG and the lnlarveners 21. Here are my reasons Ior allowing the prupnscd imerveners to intervene in the es and tor aettthg astde the ex parte orders Ovggr 15 rule 6 2 (I2) ot the Rules at court 2ot2 22 UrlderOvdev15 rule 6(2j(b) of the Rules ot ceurt 2012, the court may at ahy stage at the pmoeedlngs order that the proposed tntervehers be added as panles This IS to ensure that the matter ts ellectuatty and ootnpls|ely adludlcaled upoh And tor the issue related to the rellet alarmed by the appttcahts to be justly and eenyentently tletermtned 23. I am eattahed that the proposed lhtenreners have a direct legal rhrerest In the matter th the ease ol the AG, he ls the oustpdiah pl publlc charllabls |rusI under seetloh 9 ot the Government PvuneedltlgsAc1 1955 In the case of the tntervehere, they were the reglstered owners and a arrt Gsmflxuvltyaayflxxnloy “Nair a.rt.l In-rlhnrwlll e. u... M van; r... erthr.ll.y Mlhln dun-vlnhl y.. nFluNG mar (mslees of ms wands. -mm they were remaoed by me Apphcams pursuant to me ex pane orders. 24 The Applicants mad the OS (or declaralxons aflectmg the Wands and ula‘ ’ng the ‘ands, but wimuul naming the proposed mlerveners as S pany. And pwceeded Io uhlzm me ex pane uvders I cunssder ms to be an abuse 0! the pmcess ol OOLII1 Hence. I] \s applopriale (D aflow the pmposed InlsNeners' appncauon to Intervene. Abuse otcmm Qmoess by me Applicants 25 The Federa\ Courl m Mansmn Pmpemes Sdn Bhd v Sham Chm Yen L ors [2021] 1 MLJ 527 at 542 — 543 relleraled lhe general pnncwmss an ex pane apphcalmns as Inflows‘ “[35] A: a generanme, no om: would be mac tn mu prujudiu on pmy unless ne rm 2». oppommify a/wag hurdm as/um However ex pans apphcatrons an rvaagmsed as runes:-my and annmonexs m oenzm cwcumxtanccs As ahservedby /mac: ./m Thomas A Edison Lm 1/Bu/Ioc)<(1912) 15 CLRd7§atp Aav Them rs z pmmarypvenpl gowrrwlg me animlmstvalrun o(1usm=e,LhalrIa man rs lo be condvmnodurmeurfl, and mum, is . ganuml mic, rm ommnoum on mm in an. pm/mime ols pafly unless he has me oaporlunrly oraemg huud m drlvnnu em muances occur where/uslfcs could not be done amass me sumac! mans! of the sur! wen preserved‘ and, 1/ ma! rs m danyar cl deurutllon by one parry, 0! yr mmsdrabm or 5000115 Gamay: D5 mlmmenl, me other may com to Illa Calm and ask rs: us vnlarpcsmon awn m the Ibsvnca L:/Ins apponam, on am gonna mm may would Wows araalsr Iruushu man Instant actran Eutwhen he dun: :5 and!/1e Caunls zsked tn dixruylrd um um: nqulnmml or mm»; m olnor side, the pafly mavlng lncws . most semws responsibility - 25. From me prewous suns med by me «~ Apphcanl and me mvulvemsnt uflhe sohcrlors for me Apphcams m the prevmus suns, |hey are iullyaware mat may are seekmg a snrmlar relief as (haw forebears In me 1971 es and me 2015 suI| In hum Ihase previnus smls, Ihe Applxcanls and (hex! lorebear did not succeed to obtain an uvderdedaring me wanes to be men !am1Iy’s pnvale (rust land The 1“ Apphcanfs Appea\ 159 agamst the Hwgh Court asmsmn m me 2015 sum was dismissed by me Court at Appeal on me ground M res pmucaxa Z7 Howe»/ev, the Ap l‘r.an|s persxsl byfihng the OS. Bul this mus. wnhoul naming the proposed imervenels as a parly \ regard that as an abuse 07 the com‘: ex pane pvccess Whaleverlhewr m\evpr2|aIIun ‘s oonoermng 9 sm Gsannxuwyaaguxxnwog «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnumml VI mum pom! me grmmds or mgrnenl cl |he Courl 0! Appeal in me Appeal «as, me os should never nave peen filed on err ex pane basls 2a The Appllcants should rlal have excluded lhe proposed inlerveners lrorn me 05 me proposed lnlerveners are clearly lrrleresled pames All along, they have bee ' cllved ln lhe dlspule over the lands ln real, as reeenfly as 3.3.2023, when lnegreurms nfludgmenlallhe counomppeal In the Appeal 159 was dellvenad 29. The 1“ Apphcam had me ppppnunily la challenge me deuslon ol me calm ol Appeal lrral was rendered in me Appear 159. wmcrr had amrnrea me Hlgh cpurveaeelalon ln ulsrrriss ng rns olarm Io remuve |he lnlerveners as the |ms|ees ol the lands However, me 1“ Appllcanl uplad |o wllrraraw ms leave applleallon al lrre Federal calm. As such, we ruling of me zuls sun as well as me rullng 04 me Appeal 159 slands so. In me us and melr aifldavll In suppprl, lne Appllcanls selenwely nrgnlrgnleu certain paragraphs nflhe grounds 01 luagrnenl ol |he Cuurl of Appeal In lrre Appeal 159 And (hereby clalmed that [here Is a “declaraInn' made by the Cum 0' Appeal in Ihelrlavcur 31 Thls appears al pamgraph 9 or me Applrcanls amuanl ln suppnn amnneu on as 5.202: (Enclosure 2), ‘ rr reads -9; lzerrmrrprr ~ Pemnhorl Dermal urlluk mslaksarlakarl lminih nevsendlnan Llam Need Tana Chm Sang Thuarl msvlglkuh Iupuluun lhhkanuh luyusn lomuln pongllyllhaun hshlwi Amnnnh Llnm Hmd -renp cnar serv; man Ialah amanail persenplnarr- 32 However, the sealed order 0f the Conn oi Appeal in me Appeal 159 are rlol corllaln any suerr ‘dec|aralIon". The sealed order ol the Conn of Appeal VI me Appeal 159 oonlalnsd only me lnllowlng lerrns ‘(a7 Rayuan Pslayu eaalan ar Ialak, (la) Km sebarlyak RMJILDUD no sacara global urlluk klllgi ~\lgn xeslwzzm 596—l)3/2019, w.u2lNcvc)lA;.me.n4/zore. l=—m WCVCNWH ss- aalzmm, dl bayar kepafln nespanaen laerlarna semngga Kellnla lmakluk Kepad: bzyav-In nlnkalur flan (C) Kns sebnnyakRM10,0D0 noel bzyarkapad: Ruponden Keenan.- 33. The Applreanls hrgnlrgmed cenaln pans at me gmunds cl luagrrrenl pl me coun pl Appeal In paragrapns [so] — [55] Hauever, lne App ms mu rm hlghhghl lnal ulllrnalely, me 1-‘ Appllcanrs Appeal 159 was 10 sr~ G5mKxLNkyaEyL7XXmOg “Nair s.n.l mmhnrwm rs. LAIQ4 m mm r... nnglrrnuly mum: dnuuvlnnl vu nFluNG pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-24NCvC-631-05/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) DAVID CHEAH SENG CHYE 2. ) Michael Cheah Seng Jin 3. ) Dr. Khaw Wooi Soon PENCELAH 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) TAN SIEW JOO 3. ) SO MIAU SONG 4. ) LEE WALLY 5. ) TAN CHIN HERNG

Leave to intervene and to set aside ex parte orders – Whether abuse of court process – Whether breach of natural justice and fundamental right to be heard – Whether claim is barred by res judicata and estoppel – Whether finding of the Court of Appeal on private trust is obiter dicta.

13/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f7099d1b-54ac-4c56-9a06-02fb5d7d083a&Inline=true

13/12/2023 15:42:51 PA-24NCvC-631-05/2023 Kand. 81 S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal u—2mcvc—s31—o5/2023 Kand. E1 12/12,2122: 1342 3; In the High Com 0! Malaya in Penzng 1n the State ov Penang, Malaysm Ong atlng summons Na FA 24NCvC—631 5/2023 Da\an1 pevkara Amanah Persendman L1am Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan lndenture Cheah Leong Kean berlankh 5.3.1941 Dan ua1am coma: Amanah Psrsendxrian Mam Hood Yong Char Sang Thuan Cheah Lenng Kean beflankh 25.11.1933 Dan Da1am Alssan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan benankh 3.3.2023 man Yang Am HMR Abdm Kanm. HMR s Nanma Balan den HMR Lvm Chang Fang Dan Dalam Ir\|Br aha FEIBVIQQEH 56, $0 — $5 Nasan Penghakvnan Mahkamsh Rayuan Mendeklarasikan dan I alau Fmdmg av Facts Liam Hood Tong Chm Seng man umam Vndenlure benankh 331941 dan Coma! bertankh 26.11.1933 Cheah Leong Keah ialah Amanah Persendman Dan Dalam perkara berkenaan Harlanah Lot 491 da1am Geran No. 20345. Lo(492 dalsm Gsran No. 20349, 1.01292 dalam Geran 5935 dan Lot 96:: aa1am ssran No. 20273 kesemua d1 Seksyen 1, Banner Georgelmm Daerah ‘nmur Laul. Pulau Pmang Dan Da1am psrkara Pevlarmkan Pemegang Bam un|uk Amanah Persen man Mam Hnad Tang Chor sang Thuan Dan Dalam nerkara mer aha s A5, A3, 59 Akla Pemegang Amanah 1950 m G5omsxWkyaanL7xxn10w “Nana s.n.1...1a.m111... 3.... w my 1... nrW\ruH|:I mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum M1 Dan Da\am perkara - pefkar-a dalam pevunlukkan da\am Kanun Tanah Negara Dan Dalam perkava Kasdah 92 mlsr aha Kaedah 94 dan Kaedah 5 mleraha Penman A Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 (Rules ov com 2012) Between 1 David Cheah Sang Chye 2 Miv:hae\ Cheah Sang Jvn 3 Dr Khaw Wnui Soon .. Applcams And Psguam Negara Mmaysxa Pmposea lnlervenerl Respondent And 1 Tan siew Jan 2 50 Man Song 3 Lee Wally 4 Tan Chm Hemg [Pemegang . pemegang Amanah Awam mam Hood Tong Chor Seng Thuan) Proposed lntervsnsrsl Respondents Heard uogen-er wi\h \n ma Hwgh Court 0! Maxaya m Penang In me S(a|s 01 Penang Malaysia Ongmg ng Summons N F’ cm 47 6/2023 Dalam Penman Deklavasx Mahkamah Tmggl Pmau Plnang benarikh sezoza Mendeklarasxkan Amanah Lxam Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan adalah sa|u Amanah Persendlnan (Fnvals Trust) 2 sm G5<xmsxuwyaayL7xxmog mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! dlsrnlssed Based on me ground thal me 1-‘ Appllcanrs clslm. lnal ma lands are under ms larnlllrs pnvale lrusl, IS barred by res judrcara. 34. ll would have been meal penrnenl lpr lne Appllcarrls lp rnglrllgm paragraprrs [es] — [57] of ma grounds pl ludgrnanl pl lrre courl pl Appeal. wnlan reads 156] Thu), w. agms wl|h ma lnlalvm1a(Iun|hn|wns advnnced by me Awellarll more US However, we Agpul: mm by msorr A: sum: In puaprapvr 55 almve Cuncluslorl [571 M lrra result. In: Appvllx In Imus-li wllh ears as Plarnly‘ lne cpun dl Appeal neld mat the 1“ Applrcanrs appeal did not succeed ldr lrre reason as slated in paragraph [56] pl me grounds ol ludgrnem Trral has relererrpe no me lam man we Court pl Appeal nad amrrned lne llnding ol the dean below regarding res ]udlca|a. And an oral ground, had dlsmrssed lrle 1" Aonlrcanfs anneal. as Al paragraph [56] 04 mar gmunds pl ludgmeru. me cpun or Appeal s|a|ed ‘[55] Om rmlrrrmrprr ad mare. Ahmld Shlhviv bin S.II|Ih'x llrralrrg on In judlcall is ldlqulln ur dilmln .III rm mm xpmnls or Davld crlearl serrp Chye peldre us we as 2 and os 3 c.lmle| be srrsralned wrrerr 5Ul| l lalle Yhnlagn slrlclly rrrrrreeessary hm ldr oomp|e|eness lrr me sake er pub|lcIrl|aIu51‘ we wlll deal wnrl me pallles‘ rlval subslannvs comsmluns an mralrrar me Lands are sublsdsd lo a publlc chanlable mm orvlIva|e1Ns|' Breach ol Natural Jus e and lne F nggmgnlal Rlglrl In be Heard 37. Trra Federal court ln Dr Lourdes Dave Raj a/l Culuz Dulai Ra] V Dr Mrllon Llml slaw Wall & Andr [2020] 5 MLJ 135 relleraled lne well — esrapllsrrad legal pnrlclpls lnal an order made agarnsl a pany lrr breach or ms mrrdarnarrlal rlgnl |a pe rreard ls a breacrr dl namral lusllce wlrlclr renders the order a rrulmy and llaple rp be sel aslde 3:. The Federal Courl sald lal page 198‘ mm -1231:» me firs! quesllorl prlaw, or Lauroes relred an III: on: pmdrrrarrpy an Thamba xaurrdan 5 Am)! v D s c Bank and 5 Ana! [lass] r MLJ an (:5; lMmlarlL1y) rd mm IN DOM! la mcogmu mar ll ls a branch drrralrrral /«slim no: lo accord or Lwmls ms rrgm in be rrrard Murlfandy rs BMMOUIY lor me well - srltlud pnrlclpls prraw mar .rr err4.r mud! ngnfnsl a party Irl bnacn ofllls r 1 SN G5(llKxLlVkyaEnL7XXDlDy “Nana Smnl mrrlhnrwlll .. .r.... M M», r... nflglrullly mlhln dnuurlml VI nFluNQ pmul furldlmurlln right tn [:0 ud is bnncll ornarur-llusuee ll nndort in- me: . rrulhry Ind is tllbll re ea sat asm I351 The semi-id respenaenla eeuneelsuornmee mlmue was no Dfljudfoe to or Lourdes nor being given notice or the nmial review proceed/W5 and/nor ma eppenuniry ta bl naere ar lhe same‘ on ma beer mar Dr Loamas was new were me Pmtlrmrlary lnaulw cernrnlrree am: the we, and me would alm- pmusadlrlgs before me we was below me Nlyli courr arid Court‘ a(Apuoa/ m we mdlnral ravrew proceeding: we rem: rm aorllurllran as me pnnmplea oi nzmrauustica er. not sensm by reason L1lDr Lourdes having me eaponurnry lo dsland hmlsullill me domastlc Inqlmy praoeemngr me new to M rmrre on ma plrflnullr Incl: or rm Insunt appeal, exrerma to all new of me pmcxlding: wmen alveerea mm, am: lnrs irwuaes tllnudlclatprmeedngs me Cour! omppeai wilri mspscl orvsdiri rialconsldsmlg Mn miscarriage ornrerne surrerea by D! Loumcs man mmpaseu a lmdmg elgurlr on him annraemclea ms llgnl re Do new in ms eeranea lo nnly numng in a plea or rrutrgelien more me we - 39 Having tailed to obtain the renal he craved in me 2015 suit and me Appeal 159, the 1“ Applicant elected to relriigeie the same issue via me as herein lain on an ex pane basis that tailed to respeu the pmposed inierveners right to he heard. 40. ii is my linumg mar the ex pane arders eereinea by me An were made in breach ol me pmpusad interveners' tundamentai right to be neere. such breach or naturai iuslice, in my opinion, renrlers me ex pane oraere null and void‘ and liable to be set aside. M. The lnlervenere were me regisrerea owners and trustees atthe lands, Imtii mey were replaced by the Apelieerris pursuant ie me ex pane orders. The Applicants are tuily aware that the iritervellers were me registered uwners and trustees ol the lanes Morecver. the 1“ Applicant had attempted in ciaim the lanes in the 2015 sun and in the Appeal 159, but are not suuzed. 42. The solicitors tor the Applicants, Messrs Ismail Khon & Associates and its partner Mr John Khou Eco Lai, were at one point representing the 1" Applicant In the 2015 suit The knowledge ot the sellcitals Is imputed en the 2" and 3~= Applicants In one lriattel 43 As the registered owners and trustees of the lands at the material time, the inlarveners had a direct isgal Interest in the lands Thus‘ the ex pane eraers nblained by the Applicants had enemy ellecreu me illtevesl 07 the tnterveners By not naming the intervenels as H pany and proceeding ex pane, the Appllnants had denied nerurel justice to the :2 sm Gsmnxuveyaayuxxniog «en. s.n.i nuvihnrwttt r. u... M mm the nltgtlrnttly MIMI dnuminlrl VII .nuue pnlui lrllerveners. In me case ol the AG, he has been prevenled lrorn carrylrlg OIJI nle duiy as lrle cuslodlan cl me said lrllsl. In lrle Dfemlsesl me preposed lnlsrveners‘ appllcallorl lo lrllerverle and lo eel aslde lrle ex pane orders oplalrled by the Appllcarlls ought Ia be allowed. 44 The Federal cdllrl ln Manelpn Propermsllpra) rllled lrlal an ex pane ordercarl always be se| aslde. And when an order was oulalned ex pane, lne nnnelple ol lllrlclus omclo does not avbly Trle Federal colln sald (at page 543 - 544): ‘[42] me EOIIII lnok mle Mme Drelmlefll Dmclloe amoml DVSc1l(x1lIers|D Wucaed ll. an ex pane raenlon In rllaxlrv; aw|lca1lorlslorTDDiItrado dascllpfrorl order) urlaev 5 la cl lle rm [Travis Dasmptrorv Ac! 2M1] ll war «ulna lrlel male was Reliving wlellg or lllagal ll. such a WII:1lD!.!Im)S ln. aflacwd perm Velillll Ihe rlght bu applyw $€|a$IdB an ex pine mo lal para: [59] a [£2]; All ax Dam oldur un ml-ys be sel Islde Ina . noun Is not vllmllr ewlcle lo revlew a ma omallled ex pane anrlollurr Delleded nle nurll oval. enecled person lo army to rel erlde an ax pm me lr a llgrll wrllcrl exlsll averand abovelhs elrlerclull l1msdI€$ aulleul. In nlrll ml Is llxllelly wrlal ln. apptllams dld ln lnla can In me Hlgrl COM?‘ belawl lfley nnplled In lrllervelle nnd la 59.1 nslde rrle ex pane mo- Tne Appllcarll 05 la. barred by Ree Jlldlcala and Eeloppel 45. ln me 2n15 Skill‘ «re 1" Appllcarll represented the henellclanes M the esla|e enrle deceased Tne deceased rlad crealed me sald lmsl aver me lands lrlal formed ole bone uloorllenllon unne zms sllll ln lrle 2015 sull, me 1" Aopllcanl clelmed lhal the sald Irusl ls a pllvale lanlily lfusl, and rlel a publlc crlarllable lrllsl. 46. me calm 01 Appeal rlad dllly eerlsldered lne basls oi |he 1“ Appllcanrs clai ms Appeal 159 Trlls ls rellecled al paragraprl [27] pl lne grdllrlds dl llldgnlerll dune colln cl Appeal, wnlen reads. 1271 lrl sull 1, Davld crleul seng crly. mlllallded |hl| ln. lllllll vlfltellby me Tmlilnr appelrlled nle lrllee sans as llllsleee Io hullfl lne Pagnfla runled ‘LL-Em Hand Tlng Cmr seng rnllerr rwnlerl ln cnlrleee lranslallarl lneml anfiesllal wolshlfl hall or allarl allprled wlln crllnese cllllllre and ellslarll as lesllned by me experlwrllless. Dr Ian AI Eaey ls al Dflvak mm nllslrlomed Dytlva Taslatar havlrlw clearly observed lrle rllles adalrlsl pevvalllllllls lrl respecl ul lrle |Vu£\ our lrlll nlllldlng or he Pagoda and plwlslarl ellllllds ll; ulllld ll ~ 47 In eppoelng lrle 2015 Suil, me pmposed lnlerveners asserl max me said lrllsl crealed over me lands ls a pubhc charilable lrllsl And lhal me l 3 SN G5nfl£xUVkyaEnL7XXnl0fi “Nair Smll nurlhnrwlll be UIQG In may l... nflfllnnllly ml. glam. Vfl .rllllla Wm! 1-‘ Appttcartrs 2015 sutt, ctatnung tnet the lands ts under a pnvale tarntty lrusl. ts barved by res judtcata ana esmvner. 4a. This is rettectea at paragraphs [31] and 133] at the grounds at tuagnteht ot the court at Appeat, which reads. “tau tn oppostttart sa Klau Son‘ rat chang, ran Srevntoo, tee watty and Tan chtrt Hemg natlsnlvely wttnI:r- pantenaaa that the tnaertture ptatr-ry evtnoed a publlc ch ’ blnnnlhecattse Mme presence attha cvuclalwolds -utwrr trust to attuw attpersprrs who progsss ms suuahrsr rnlrgron In warshrp arm parrarrrr ralrgmua cammorvss ur mniurmtry wrtn trr. t9tmdIn:1 mlfgmn at the sat: pagoda" In the trtnartture [33| tt u atsp arnpnasrsea tnatay vtnue ouurttcs Musuphs rt ssltnsdecman matte an 2- septentaer 1962 pursuaru ta ntgh Cnurl at F. -lug Ongtnalmg Summons Na. 357 cl 1971‘ the iubpem rnatterarra tenets saughl tn the sun are barnd by us tuntcata srta ulnppll “ 49 The Conn pt Appeal rutaa that the I" Appttt:aht's 2015 stttt, on aenatr at the beneflciartes at tne estate at the deceased. was barred by res tuutcata. This appears at paragraphs [54] ana [55] ot the grounds of tudgrrtent at the Courl of Appeat, whtch reads‘ 1541 cpnseauernty, we nrta that there ts rte mluilnnlhm by Justin Ahnua Shlrlvlain Sallnh who hlld that suttt ts haw-d by us lndlcala try resuarr cl Jusnca Mttsuphs Hnssatlfs aeotstort auteu 2 saptarrtasr tan: In trns resped we turther find and note that Jumcn rttturtspna Husssrns dectstnn tnat I5 evtdewed by ms ground: at judgmlnl dllad 2a Attgus| tsaz terrtatns vatta norwtthstanotup nu kn praar ms never drawn up by etrher at me pamu Dumtam to o :2 r to at me Rutes at the mph CattrI198I1.AI are as we are mncamedt me aeerstan ol Jusllcs Mustapha Huiutn has Devi ttnmmnkably rnatte and that s attrhar matters here [set our afllrmallon 51 Jun’ Alumna Sh tutr hln sattews llnfllnq on us tuatuta II afluqulh In dlxmlsl an Inn mu Ippuli or new chaan seru; Chyn aetare us the os 2 and os 3 cannot be wslalnsd when Sml I tarts maugh slnnlly urmeoessary put tor porrtptatsrrasr tn the take at pttbltc uttetest. we wttt aaat wtlh Ins pames‘ rtust auastarrtrve mnlemiorts an whether the Lands are suotactau ta a pupttc ehsrrtaate Imsl at nnvale trust " so The present 05 Mad by the Appttcahts is the third attempt by the beneltciianes at the estate at‘ the rtepeaaea Ia tay ctatrh lo the lands Based on Ihe ecnlenlton that lhe Wands are (hetr IEVIIIIYS pnvale INS1 lands ll ts my findvng that the as hevetn is srrrtitarty barred by res judtcala and 8510999‘. IA SIN G5mHxL1vhyaEyL7xxmDy «war. s.r.t mmhnrwm r. u... m van; t... nngthnuly sun. dnuuvtnnl VII .nurte amt 51 Tne cuun nas power under section 11 av lne Schedule pv me Couns ovaudicalure Ac11964|u disnriss1ne Applicants‘ clarrn on me ground vnel lne dispule over me lands is res ludlcala pevween them and ine proposed Inlerveners. The said provision reads 111 Resludlcala Puwsv 1o dlimlu or may prlvusdlrvgs wnsrp me rnsner in qusvstlnn is res ludlcnla bulwurl vne |>iVlI51,or men by mason p1 rnulucrplrcre, pv pmceedlngs in any aeurrs ine pmceedlngs dugnr nm lo be mminued 52. on res judlcals, me Caurl ov Appeal nad reacned lne vollawlng conclusion at paragraphs [51] - [52] av their grounds at ludgmem: 1511 Aller due curlslderfillun, we are in me vlew lml special clmumslames which exclude rne upnlrcemn allesludlcaln or issue esropnel are dnly alllacted updn rne nlslnrlvv dernensuaung lne rnresnpld redurrevnenl ov nleqaiiw. Vick 0' lullsdldlon urnaua wnrsn has occaxloned in me onainal a:|larl Nonevnsim, ms piarnlriv may mil be denied lne oppollunny In oulsus me vmn udlurl N specpl cl-purnsranm dlnjlze lnsnr ll urnusrvurvne plllmflm dn sd PM in irlolhelwny. spuprsl pnaurnsvenpss flu mi Brent: 5 new ullngary warvanlmg rne nmsull M a vresn anion hm operere In deny lne DuIsm|almeV|esV1 serum norwrrnslanmnu lllewalflyv lack M iurlsnmnn or vraud nas been nrads mn ms is seen in cnss Pok cnoy lsuwa) wnere lne nesn anion premised on naud was sliuwea 1a procesd became n was vauna, on me veal: and snpunrsunm pv me use (ml 1| was urllus1 var lne plaln|M|hu1llI|o prulrv on in. lraud 1| perperrersd an lne mun [52] Based on rne veas never II is Dial?! 1r1a|Davld Chsah Sena cnye nsrlner pleaded IVIEQIIW1 lack av iunsmupn nor vraua la ruslrvy Hm lnsI1|u|lon uv sun 1 Na also norluedad virus is no case aulhonly 1ns1 public cnanuele uusl and /or private lNs| am a specrsl I:l|agnry Wham in. duclnna nl .es ludlcam puglrl nm vp nvmy * 53. Slrloa lne sumevn mafler av lne Applicanls presenl 03 and me 1-‘ Appllcanfs 2015 surl penarn to me same lands, and are based on lne sanre cause pv aciipnl vaeis, issues and relieis, I firm ma| lne App|lcanls' claim aver 1ne lands IS paned by res ludll:a|a The finding av lne Ccurl ov Aggeal on g ’ ale (ms ’s obiler male 54. Tne decision o1 me ceun ol Appeal in me Appeal 159 nae decided lna1 me 1-‘ Applicant’: claim [0 ins lands, on the argument lnel lne lands are under a pm/ate 1arnilylrus1end not a public cnarnanle lmsl. Is barred by res ludlcala Tnal is the ratio deciderldl oi the Courl av Appeal Tne 1“ Applrcanl cannol now seek any relievand claim me lands again, using the same argunvenl lnal lne lands are under a pnvale Iamlly lrusi 1 5 sm G5<xnnxuvnysanL7xxnl0i1 «mu. s.n.1 ...n.mn r. .1... e may r... uvnn.l-r mm. mmn VI srlulva v-mxl 55 eranleu lnal ma cam 91 Appeal men pmseeded lo pm 9 men Vlsws ocncemlng lns lnlarpralallpn of the lndsnlure. ln mus vagam, me caun pl Appeal agreed wllh lna argument advanced by me 1“ Applicam lnal lne sale lmal ls a prrvale lmsl 56 In thelr grounds of judgment, me com :2! Appaal sam: -{s»:1nu.s,wa ale ol ma vlaw mal lna -ma nature of lna lms| ln ouasuorl have will depend on me corlilruwon pl lna Cudul ma lndenmm opmsxlually rem aaalnsl ms backdrop nl cnmaaa cllllllm and suslmn see Hm Vlk cnal s Hay vaw Tang 5 Anal [1952] 2 Ml.) 221 so {am We have aavslully man daules 10[a)lnd lllmmalms coma: and clause llal — (cl av lne lmanvms and um nm the raslamrs dammam lmamnn V! la have me Pagoda bum as a amaulsl anaasual nall lanna Taslztzoru «amlly and aaspamama lp wnrshln ancsslms as uaslman by ms sole axpsll wllness Dr ran Alfiusy VII declphellng me name uamlalanly mm lauaanalapanlsausayvong (hall) cm sang tancsston Thuan lallan Llim Hand Yhnna Cher Sena man xlmlvg mgemer meanlx Buddhlsl anpaaual nall / allaroiworshlp [ell ln afldmun, the Teslainr navm anvmmaa nus ln-as sum ml nm me Exaculuvjln nnple-namnlswlsnss unuama lmenlurv nmnaalsnlwlln cnlnssa wnura nnd cuslflm on Dulldllvg ansawal wurshlp nall l BN3! »ma.a.n responsmlllly I5 vested only an nula llnenge mn lna same Teslzlors surname mesa are commonly done by weallhy cnlnase lamlllas ln cmna. Yarwnn And Malaysla aocuvdlng us Dr van wnomwa am sallsraa Ii an amply quslflied experl on lnls mmerbnsed on he! numculum unas [n21 Be Ina! as II may‘ we in nnmml (ha! lheve ls alsa lmsnllpn mlna Teslnml m pemlll all psnana who nmless lns Budflhlfl mlnglon lo wmmp and peflnml rsllglaus cualnanlas VII oonlanvllly wlln ms auaunm valiglun .n me pappaa We mwnver «nu ma: mls ls ma rsslamrs Iewlsnt Intvllmn xubamlnaled In n-a darI\4nBn| lnlzmlun ol pulualng an ancuual wurshlp nall / anal pamculany zw mm usmg lns word 'aIlvw‘ .n cllusu Mb) Mlhe lnslenme [ecu Cormanuemly am slnce lna Teslalnrr dominant Inlsnlmn IS to have lne Pagudn ml: as An ancaml wan-p nan /altar. wl find nu: ma mm which In: bean cnatcu for mu purpou um um conulllm a puhlhc chlrlubln lmanlpllowlng Slv Han Nu: m. V um Klm sang a. Ann! [1955] 22 MLJ142 male wnmon J nalu as fnllawx , wlm regalfl lo Ihe anoeslval npuss mwannlp l| I: clenr Ihrs was a snnna for lnmlly purpasas, and I do ml flunk l|l euenllal pm/ale nalma V5 uflsuad by the pmvmon my me dnvlbullon al alnls nr loud |a pool tvavnllvs DY la alher pool psrwns wtm mvgm came up Worship an ms house or Irv: In me vlninlty, Var I lsal ma pnmslan was oon|empl:4ed by ma same: pnmnly as aflordmg «manual asslslance to an adlvlly 01 gm mm W cnnnecuorl mm lna ancsslval house and ml as an aulxmnce cl . pananal namra lp ma allmmpn 15 sm Gsamxxuvnyaapuxxnlug “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. l... M mm .. anan.u.y mm: dnuuvlnnl VI arlum puns! pl ms oondmorl pl me your suns rlslghbeulmud ar av nnpmnsnse rlrnsrsnls passlng lnrpugn n lvlnn vltw n wind nel only ll lnsrs an absence pl e ssnsrsl snsnlslsls lnlzmmn ln rsspssl nlmls lnlsl. hm n my pprrnen II has rlal lnsl mulls e4emen| wrnsn n rehglaus Vusl charkable In law rnllsl possess tsllnrollrv opalsa. 06 [1949] AC 426‘ [msl 1 AH an my I have rsasrrea me corlclusmns, aeponlmly lrlal ms mm In rvsaacl 0' ">9 WWI. Waugh Wssesslrlu no general cnarnaple -nlenllen, ls s walla cnsnuols must but lr-al lns mm -n vewed or ms anoewzl hou pl wprsrnp canrm| es rspsnlsu es snanmals, 2IHdl!|Haliful1,lV|A‘|i7fl ms lampmsrs addafl [Ml Mnleaver ln Re Nun. asseassa llsssl MLJ as, ll was held lnal In be a chamy ln law, me lrusl rnnsl be eslnbllshed lor purposes wrnsn ave sxclnswsly cnamaple. see also Nal sang Nlarly v rrrs Tnmasi mlns Pvasblflhrlan cnursn ln srnqspcvs Reqlllered A ols [was] 3 MLJ 311 we Ivvlaln unmrwllwed lrnn me 1. nor had lnlanded ls aslapllsn a llusl whlch was In be exclusively snssnnsls I351 ln me nremlses, we one and held lrlal lnere ls no Qensml charllama lnlernnn ny |he rsslanpr |n mvesl lne Lands luv purposes m vehgleul chamy psr-srally rrrs Irunwllkhwu uutnfl bylhn Yuulo s amslnss . privlh (mil man Is lncapspla pl Cy-was upon hllure puns lrusl spnlrary tn mar as laund Ind nsla by Julllce Alnnns snsnnr znn Salleh win concurred wlln Justine Muslavha Hussaln” 57 The courl pl Appeal oplnea lnal me said Irusl is a prlvate lrusl Bu\ lhal eonnnenl was made ln pesslng. Hence. apller alcla. Tnsl llrrding was npl essenllal vol lne aesnnon or me calm ol Appeal ln lne Appesl 159 Nsvenneless, lne Ceurl ol Appeal maugnl ll dsslrahle lo provide llselr views, given me rwal conlenllcns ol me panies on (NS palm 53 lrl the own words omre Courl oi Anneal- -[551 Our almrrnallsn m Jnmloe Ahmad snannr bln sallens rlnalng an Iusludlcala Ii aasquals In msnnss all the was appeals ev Damd cnssn Sung Shy: were us In. cs 2 an as 3 ssnnpl be suslsrnss when sun I lsrls rnellqn nticlly ululu:-Illly hullnv cnmplmmvlsl in lns sake el puhllc nneresl we wlll flul wllh um a mu‘ flnl inhslnnllw cnnumlons on wrmhnr 0 Lands as suns-em: Ia - vuhllc I:hu(uNI lmsl or pnms lmst’ 59, ll ls nlsln mat me coun cl Appeal had smnneu Ihe llndlng ollne courl below regardlng res lualcale The Court or Appeal lnerelore dismissed lhe 1" Appllsanrs Appeal 159 on me ground 0! res judlcala. Tha| IS me rsllo decldendi so The Courl v1 Appeal expllcnly slaled that ll IS unnecessary to deal wlln me rrvsl canlenllor-s ol whelher the lands are sublecl lo a nu 17 srn Gsamxxuvhyaanuxxnlvv “Nair s.nn nuvlhnrwm es UIQG e may r... snnn.nl mm: dnuuvlml Vfl srlum pensl eharltable trust cl! a private iainily trust Albeit that the court oi Appeal proceeded to do so, ior cempletenesa in the sake oi public interest 61 Given that the iinding oi a private ttust is not essential to the decision oi the Court oi Appeal in the Appeal 159, the saine rriust pe regarded as opiter dicta. Accordingly, it does not have oinding weight. otherwise. tithe hnding that the said tmat is a private trust was the ratio decidendi. the 1' Applicant's Appeal 159 would have been alluwed Obviously that was not the outcome oi the Appeal t59. 62. In an earlier pan oi their grounds pi iudgntent, the coun oi Appeal had teocg ed that the cure issue peicte them is the issue oi res iudi ta. And that tnetv decision on the said issue will determine whether it s necessary ior them to decide on the remaining findings with regard to the nature and consequence oithe s trust 53. Paragraph [431 oi the grounds oi ludgineni oi the Court oi Appeal reads ‘[43] we have therelaie in the exerase oipurappetiate iiirietiaii reviewed tustice Ahiiiad snahiir pin sallahs ground at iudgiiiaht in the light at the contentuaiis rlnw advarioed more us it iserris me at Inn we iiiust iiist detdnriiiia tho iliidtnp en ru iudtcat. as this will :1 rate whether it raiiiaiiia lllcilllvy thmaitar to daiaiiiitiia IM rsriiatiitiip tiiidliigi an the IIIIMM and coiiaaguiiiess oittia Imst as tiedueathed trvthstestatpr- 64 Aiter considenno the issue of res iudieatar the court oi Appeal amrnied the iindtng oi the court tielow un ies iudicala. Arid stated in no uncenain terms that such aiiirrnation is adeqtia|e lo dismiss the appeal oi the 1“ Applicant in the Appeal 159. it iotlows that it was not necessary ior the cpun di Appeal to decide an the nature and consequence oi the said trust 65. To sum up, the ‘by the way‘ opinion ol the Court at Appeal, I e. that the said trust is a private tmst as not essenual to their decision in the Appeal 159. The ratio decidendi is the amtrnation oi res ludicala On the ground at res iudicata. the 1" Applicants Appeal 159 was dismissed 36 In the preirllses,|ne1“ Applicant and the ulnar Applicants cannot be permitted in telitigate the same claim over the lands, based on the same argument Ina! the lands are ttrtdera pill/ate farnlty trust. In the Appeal t59, the coun oi Appeal had clearly decided that such a claim by the 1" Apptlcant is barred by res ludtcata 18 SN Gfihllflxuvhyafiyflxxflloy "Nate Sunni nuvlhnrwlll be u... M van; i... nnglrrnllly MVMI dnuuvlnrll v.. aFlt.ING ptmxl Order NA app canons try the Applicants 67 To add irisilli Io iniury, irie Applicants filed uirae applicalions ior dlspusal oi me riiarrer on a point ol law umler Order 14A oi the Rules oi coun 2012. Trirs was done in me mids1 oi exliauslirig affidavits and mine wriuen submissions in re5Decl cl irie Dwnosed lmervenllon ario senirig aside bl me ex Dane onlers The Applicanls contend lriac iriere is no quesliori on lacls And «rial ilia 05 is sullable lo be disposed oi hased on a pbirii bl law under Order 14A ol me Rules ol couri 2012. as Under Order MA onrie Rules o1Cuun2D12, lhe oourl rriay dS|8mIIl'Ia ariyqueslicn cl law or consrrunion pl ariy docurrienl wriere ll appears that -(a) sucri queshon is sunable lor oelerrriiriaiiori wilriom rrie lull lllal ol Ihe amipn, aria lb) sucli oeienninalian will finally delerrriine irie enrire cause or insurer or any claim or issue therein 69. Trie Cmm D1Appeal in Pelmleurri lilasrbnal and y Ksralaan Negeri Tereriggariu & arrozlrer appeal [zoos] 4 cm 337 ar 353 observed (hsl a preliminary quesiiori srioulo be carelully and precisely irariien so as to avoid crmcunies cl rnierpreialion as no what is crie real allesliuri wriicli is being nrdered la be Irled as a preliminary issue 7n. Tne Order MA appllcatlon filed by me Applicants reads ‘1 a ri wi Amarl-III Llim Ham Tang Char serig mrari ia lsri suaiu arrianarr Derserldlrlnn flan bukan ariiariar. khalml l mni (‘public l crranlaple lrusrl din ialari dl buiusliari, dl lelflllkani ai eapali darl l arau oi perlirnoanakari irieiaiui kflerallflarll fakla aari ilrroana ~ urldang pl-ri rinamiarriari Rayuarl pain 3 3 ma uteri Vang AM Hakim Mahkamih Rayuin Abdul rurini NMR s Nariuia aslari can HMR Llm crrprig Fang uunra sehulal sunm ln|er airs oi pererippari as sehlrlgga as Alasari penqrrmnisn isrpuria cl Judgmenll 2 Dan aleh nu. seriula prriali dan rriana » rriaria Mahkamah dl lkull uleh keplllusan Marirarnari Rayuan mslulul doktrlrl rnlaraiia Remludlranla‘ car. siare Diciili 3 Juflem flu‘ Msrilmrisn prpa memplmyal kuasa Immk melurlzskanllrldakarl irii berdasmkarl A MA u llsl Kaeflah —K3Bd’iih Mahkamah znlz 7i In my view. llie Order MA appllcallon filed by me Applicanls is unwarranted and rleleciiye. Firsl, lriere is plainly a dispute oi lacls and findings‘ which mlgm to pe ventilated through an iriler panes nearing oi «lie os To , me oispuie wini regard in me eiieel pl me nnclings ol me courl of Appeal in me Appeal 159 Thai issue rias already been brougm Iolhe lorelrorii via me applieaiioris meo by me proposed iriierireriers lb eel is srn Gsamxxllvhyaanuxxnlvw “Nana s.r.i nuvlhnrwlll be mad a may i... bflnlnallly MIMI dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl mi aswde the ex pane urders. There 13 na need «or me Appncams to add to the \ayer or lmgalmn by filmg «us Order MA apnlucanons 12. Second. this \s not a wnl aclncm wnere were wm be a full trial. This Is an cmgmahng summons that win he detidad based on amuavn evidence. men; is already |o be an Inter panes heanng In decvde an the pendmg appucanans tor rmervennon and sewng zswde. Thmwmg an Order HA appncanon Inlc me rmx ws qune unnecessary 73 Third, there was actuauy no queslxon 01 law posed by the Applncanls for \he courts determmahon. Rather than 3 question 07 law. lhe Applicant nns put forward a prayer for the com to aware that me sa \msI \s a pnvale |Vus|, mslead of a public dlamable INS! Bill that is precxsew the Issue ror determination in me pending appncanans mm by me proposed Inlerveners to set aswde me ex pane orders 74 For me reasons above, I dlsrmssed the Or\1er14A applrcanons med by Ina Applrcanns. 75 Inna Applicants msagres wan the decision ollhe Cuurl or Appeal and me mterprelauon mane grounds or judgment onne cuun 0! Appeal In me Appeal 159, the 1“ Apphcanl should have connnuea wan his apphcahan «or weave |o apple‘ to ma Federal Court. 75 lnleresnnglyy the Weave question posed by the Appllcams Included the !aI\awing '\ Whmnsv when the own ul Appam make 2 new Vwndrng on Ian: and law Much wax m:| nan. by me Hugh Court. can the Court nlAwea\ msrmuud (Iva apvul on n.. grmmd oi ..s...a.m-. and esloppa\”’ Costs 77 Order 59 nAs1fl or me Rules a! com 2012 reads’ ‘Hz Cmlsdueln unnecessary clmms or wssues 10 ssr. in) ‘H addmnn la and nol m aeraganon many mm pmulmn .n ma Order. where a party has ram to anamnn any chum ar Issue wmch he has vawsed In any pmoaaunrgs, and has thereby unnecessarfly or umeasonaoly Dmtvanad, or addnd m we was m mmpleuly nl Imsre pvooeedlngs, the Com! may older man the wan cl Ihal pany snnn not be anuma m whola or n. pan, or mm any cnsls cncasmned by man damn onssua m any cnhuv puny man be pmd by hum to ma| unnar parry reqamlan av We mflmme or me muse or maller’ 2o srn Gsamsxuvnyaaguxxmog «wn. snrm ...n.ryn .. med m mm .. mn.u.y mm: dnuumrrl y.. mum M.‘ Berkenaarv Hananah Lol N0. 491 da\am Geran No. 20345‘ Lot No. 492 dalam Geran No 20349‘ La! No 292 da\am Geran Na. 5925 din Lot No. 960 dalam Gevan 20273 kesemua dx Seksyen 1. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Timur Lam, Pulau Plnang Da\am nerkara Amanan Parser: an Liam Hand Tong cnar Seng Tnuan Vndenlule cnean Leung Kean benarikh 3 3.1941 Dan Da\am Cndicfl Amanan Perssnmnan Lwsm Hood Tong chm Seng Tnuan cnean Leung Kean benankh 25.11 1935 Dan Da\am perkara Urusan‘ Pemadblran Bayaran Cukax Tanan Temmggak oxen Pemahen » Pemoncn Bsrkenaan Hananah - Hananan Amanah Perssndman |Pnvale Trust) Lwam Hood Tong Chow Sang Thuan henkulan Penman Deklarasx Mahkamah Tinggw Pwau Pinang benarikh 3.5.2023 Dan Dalam perxara Periannkan Pemegang aam unluk Amanah Persendman (Pnva|s mac) mam Hocd Tong Char Seng Tlwan benkulan Penman Deuaras. Mankamah Tlnggv Fulau Pmang s e 202:4 Dan Da\am psrkara Inter ans 3. 45. 45. 59 Ana Pemegang Amanah195O Dan Dalam psrkara - perkaua dalam perunlukkan dalam Kanun Tanah Negara Dan m G5oMxuvnyaanL7xxn\0v «mm. saw ...m.mn .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 71: After lne deolslcn nl llle cpurl al Appeal In llle Appeal lss, me 1“ Applrcanl had med an applraalron lor leave Io appeal lpllle Federal ceurl. aul subsequently wrlrldrew NS Federal coun apphcallon Durlng lne rrearrng, I ouerled me oounsel lor me 1* Applloanl about me reason lor sud’: wllrldrawal The counsel lor lrle I‘ Appllcanl suggesled lrlal ll ls unnecessary lor lllrn lo appeal because llre Court ol Appeal rlad agreed wlllr nls argument llral me sald lnn.l n. a pnvale |rusl ln olller werde. me 1“ Appllcanl lell lnal rlad wnn. ll anylrnng, (he prpppsed lmsrveners shuuld be me ones lp appeal 79 Tnerealler. lne Apnlloancs prooeeded lo file me 05 on an ex parle basis and oblalrled lrle ex lzarle orders Thereby sleallnlly laklng me lands awayl based on lhelr ellegallorl lrlal lrle courl el Appeal had made a dealarallen ln lhelr lavour llral the lands are under a pnvale lannly (ms! l lnrnk llle Appllcanls rlad unneoessarlly and unreasonably pmlracted me nlaller, and esealalecl lrre llllgallpn eosl lcl be lnourred by lne pmpclsad lnlervenuvs an The Appllcancs lunller nled lllree applleallens under order MA ollrre Rules ol courl 2012. oslenslply lo save ludlclal llrne and eesls. Bul lrral ls yet anolner lnalanee ol fihng unnecessary appllcatlnns, and addlng to me costs pl [hears proaeedlngs a1 Havlng regard to me luregulng, I oonsldered ll approprlale lo order lal glunsl oosls M RM5D,DOU lo be pald lo (M lrllervensrs, wllh rupeol lo Enclosure e and Enclosure 2l mill: 1“ cs lnl Iaml wsls nl RMwl0l‘Ifl lo pe pm .a lne AG.wlI1l respeel la Erldnsure 9 and Erlclusule la ln lne 1" 05: and La) global coils pl RM5L7,flDD la be peld |o me lrnerveners. wlln vaspe-:1 ol Enclnsms 15 and Erllimura ls rn ms 2- os concluelpn 32 under order 32 rule 6 ol lrle Rules or cdun 2012. an ex pane order may be sel aslde. I suppose lrle rallonale lor lrral rule ls benause an ex pane order ls grarlled wllnoul lrle benell| el llearrng me elrler sll1e.Thal ls why ‘the party mavlng an ex pane applrcalrpn rncurs a most serlour. raspnnslli y‘ To make lull and crank drselusure, even ol nlarlers wrrlch are ncl| rl llls lavour. l lear me Applloanls have lallen sllon pl suon IN Gsomxxuvkyaalnvxxnlvw “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm re UIQG a may l... nrwlrullly ml. dnuuvlml Vfl nrlurlfl Wm! 63. Now, mm me benem uI hearing suhmssvons Iron: me prcpused inlerveners, I accspnhal Ihe ex pane ordevs were wmngIy granted. I must make (mugs rigm by semng aside me ex pane orders 34 For the reasons above, I gave leave Io the proposed Inlerveners Io Intervene in the OS And sel asme the ex Délfle orders Dated 7 December 2023 Q Quay Chew Soon Judge Mgh Cuurl uI MeIeyeI Fenang CMI Di siun NCVC 1 Qgflfli John Klmc Ban LeI (Mssvs Iemeu Klloo A /lssucmlas) Ierme Avnflcarus src Nan Mohammad Aysem hm Hap Humm‘ src Numl Famana mm Khahd‘ src Erma wam mm: mm Keflee‘ src um Syazwzm MIII Abdul Azlz (Almmey General‘: Chambcls) Ierme P’ Pmnosefl Innervener Ung cmn Kye and am 116 Wow {Mews P090, Cllnn 5 Ung) lnr me 2m Pmpoeea Imuvenen 22 em esmmuw.,.e.uxxnIo,, «mm. Sum nmhnrwm be HIGH m mm .. nr1gIn|HIy mm: dnuumnl VI nFIuNG puns! Dalarn perkava ln|Er alla Allnan 92 Kaedan 94 dan vile! alla Aluran 5 Kaedah 5 Kaedan — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 [Rules ol Calm 2012) Between Davld cnean Sang cnye Mlohael cnean Sang Jln Dr. Khaw W001 Soon Appllcanls And Tan Slew Jon So Mlau Sang Lea wally Tan cmn Hemg (Pemegang — pemegang Amanan Awam Llam Hood Tong cnm sang Tnuan) . . Proposed lnlervenersl Respondenls >mmg Gmlmds ol De lnlmducuon 1 These lwu maners were heard logelnev (culleclively “os"), namely: La) an ex pane Ollgmallng Summons No FA-2JNCv<2-BM-D5/2923 1‘1“ on am an an exvana Onglnltlng Summons No PA—2ANCvCr747—D5/2023('2" as“) 2 am os concern a lmsl known as ‘Llam Hood Tong Cher sang Thuan’ (“said trust") The sald lrusl was eslabllshed under a deed of Indenlure used 3 3 ml and a codlcll dalad 5.3.1941 execuleu by one chsan Leong Kean ('dlI:I:sad'). 3 The sand (lust pennin to low pleas: of land known as (1) Lcl N 491 under Geran No 2oa4a,( Lol Nu 492 under Geran No 20:49, Na. 292 under Gemrl No. 5935 and [N] Lul Nu. 960 under Gerarl 2027:, all m Saksyen I. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Tlmuv Laull Pulau Plrlang (collectively ‘I:nds”). 4 sm G5(1lKxUVkyaEyL7XXnlDg “Nair smnl ...n.mn n. n... m mm .. mn.u.y snn. m.n.n vu nrlum pmul 4. The I‘ and 2"‘ Appricanvs are beneficiaries nf the estate of the aeeessenn They are me green grandsons vflhe deceased 5. The Applicants had omenneo nrne lollawmg coun orders on an ex pane basrs (Lx>4\ec1we\y ‘Ix pen-no ordlrs (3) m nno was, nex vzme emeoeneo s n 2o23(‘1-ax rum nmnr') flrndev nn. 1!‘ ex on 2 under. . declamlmn was orenneo men nne earn mm rs a Drwne \ms| (and mi e Duhhn: chanlame wet). hassd on nrre mounds on maonnernn nnenea 3 a znzaomne Cowl ompvean, and In) m Ina 2'» as‘ an ex Dana onoeroaneo 27 e 2023 (ernenoee on 24 1 20237 n'z"< u mm entail Urnoer nne rv ex me nrder e rseaerenron was gvamsd \h:| nno Apphcanls be ippmmed .s the nrusnees onne sena nmsn. Am Ihnnlve Annnneernns he regnslzmd as me vvaollemrs ollhs landi. s. The proposed nnnerveners Ned apphcalimns no mlervene m me 05 and |o ssl asme nne ex pane omers There are [we sens 04 proposed Inlerverners. The men pmpased nnnervener re me Annorney Gernera1‘s Chambers nus"; 7 The second se| oi pronoseo mnerveners cumunse al nour rnnemenens 1“lrnlIrVIrnon”) They are me nrusnees 0! me lands (3) me n" and 2» Imsrverners were apponr-nao on 12 3 mm by: Panang mgr. Coun oroer ournneo by no An snrno J. no; nn. 3" am 4" nmwenen were apnmved byme AG no he eopormeo as me trustees Mme lands. we e Vellerlmm the AG aenea n5 : znnor Ln) nne an en: aw Imerveneri were appomlad ailhslmneas ems nernns by 2. Pernaml man courn onoer mauled by Wong Teen Meng 4 an 1 5 mm and nor on il 13 s 2923, me nu ma 2m lnlelveners were snnnn me veunslsved owners on me norms, nn menrcanacn|y esme Kmslees Mme sero nrusn 3 Annogenher, nrnere were six eppnncennons belote me Namely- la) m(h21“OS an e Mme ovappnneauonoaceo a a 2023 moo by nnennnervenm lar leave no Intervene eno no set asroe me 1“ ex pane uIder1Enc{usme an on s ruonroo on appVII:a\uzn dated eazaza met! by Ihe AG ver leave no Nerve»: arm to sen nsnde IIne1“ex pane mer nznenosuno 9)‘ 5 srn G5<xmxxuv>nyaanL7xxm0w «we. s.n.r navnhnrwm be mad on may r... nnnnnr-r mm: dnuamnl VI murna WM 111.7 a nmme cf appH::al\on daled 29 9 202: filed by me Anmrcarrrs (M mspnsal on a pmm at 1am umar OIusv14A no the Rules cl Conn 21:12 V1: a ws the AG (Enc\o5uve 191‘ (M a Helms av aapmurorr daled 2992n2a rm by we Apvhums dm aapom on a palm waw under oraarm MINI Rulesaicmm 2012 ms n yrs Il1e\Merveners(Erw1usum 217, (hi m the 2'4 us 1.; n mute olapplmsmn dam: 5.v zmvm um. Imurvenersimleava lo Intervene and m sm awe ma 2~< ax pane arder 1Enak1sMm :51, and 11.; a mhcu L11 applscamn dated 29.9 202: Wed by ma Apn|1canI: war «arm.» on a mum av law undav Drdav HA 471015 mm M Count 2912 (EnrJnsure1Bt 9. On 27.11.2023, Igave leave |o Ihe pmposed mtervenets (0 mlervene in me as Furlher, 1 sel aside lhe ex parle orders, I am dismissed ma Order 14» appnmamrrs men by the Appnrcarrrs Here are me gruunds 0! my d2c151on. Background lam: The 1971 05 10. 1n 1971, the grand uncle ov me 1-‘ and 2"-1 Aaplicams, together wrm elhsrlamnly members, made an apphcalmn to the Penang High Court via Origmallng Summons No. 357 011971 (-1911 05“; 11 The 1971 OS soughllorlhefollowmg reliefs. -111 mu lhn um: and herednamams new kmwn as >1a1a1rrg 491, 492‘ 292, 293 and 1615) mm Subdlmvon 1‘ Nnnh Ea:|D|s|m:1 Penang vnum ave held upon 1nenms1rcraa1.¢ undern am am 3 u m dnland In vomr pm um. mmuary unit of think many Knh an a (21 A1|emaIlve|y,maH7\e sane W515 be dlclimd 1a have vanes and ma: Ina saro Vnnds be arm ar-u ma pruum dwldsd among Ihe resnduary Vagalen 1.1 111. Dmnomonl sn1au|1n\bew1I\ am: am Cheah Lem Kean doceabsd ' 12 On 2 9 1962, the Fenang High Conn wsmissed the 1971 OS. Vn his grounds oljudgmenl dated 20 5.1952. Muslapha bin Hussain J hek! met me INS! created over me ‘Ends are manlabls lrusl and the princlple of cy- pres apphes There was no appeal agams| are rare decrsrorr ol Muslapha Hussam J 5 sm ssmmw1.,.a.uxxrr1o,, “Nana s.r.1...rr.rw111r.. .r... m mm r... nrighuuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum M1 Dis 2015 sun 1: Maxi, in 20:5, the 1“ Applicant niea a civil s n the Penang High coun via sun na. 21-NCVC-4-01/2015 (-2015 um ). Tne 2015 sun was filed by me 1' Appiiaani on oanaii oi riiinseii and ine omei beneiicianes of me asxaia anne deceased. 14 me 2015 suit spugrii ipi ma following ialieis '(a) a uaciaiaiion inai an subssqunnl sciians and I or noun pruceodings and] DV iuaginam ma amen made mnlrnry In H s Ong'salderdn|ed 29 March iaaa iwniai cnmnnsed lhe aVnlemen|iDnefl OMEIS aaiaa 9 Jana-Ely mi. 2 sevxainpei isez i2 Sememheffllfli. 16.JariuaN zone and 1 May min pe aeoiaiaa nail and vumi (bi niai ins axacullan 0| im oiav dalsd 7 May zrm mm by Jushcl Wang Yam Meng as sliynd pending me aispasai nuns urexenl autumn in max in iiuams cl Linm Head Ton: CNX Sena Thuani Amariah Kehallkan I\Wem' apppiniaa vine any sapsaqiiam pmsis bu miiimn: 15 The cause oi aciion oi me 1“ Apphcanl in me 2015 suit was based on his conceniion inai iris lands beiong lo his privaie iamily irusi, After a lull vial, ins Psnang Hign Com dismissed me 2015 suit on 22.3 2019. Ahmad snamir hm Moria saueii J awarded coats oi RMi5u,uoo in the iniamaneis. And cas|s nl RM5D,000 io ina AG. who had been sued as the em dalendanl in ma 2:315 sun 16. In his grounds or judgment dated was 2019 Ahmad snaniii J ruled against ine 1“ Apphcaril on me following gwund iai the «'4 Aapiiaanrs Sim In aiaini ma iams, an the basis inai may ais unasi a pnvi|e iamiiyinm, is band by ms judlcaia and Iiiua asio;-psi, and mi ins mm cnuisa undu in. llvdenlum aaiaa a 3194‘! V! a puaiia cnaiiiahie inisi. ma rial a niwaie Vamily imsi The ggfiai 159 17 The 1"App|icanI appealed in ma Cuurh11Appea| againsuna decislfln pi Ahmad snanni J vide civii Appeai Nu P—G1|NCvC)|W|—159—D3/2019 ('AvnonI 1597). on 27 2.2022, me coun oi Apnea: dismissed the 1" Appiiaanrs appaai. The grounds oi iuugnieni ciine com in Appeal aaieu 3.3.2023 is iepaiiaa as David Chsah sang cnya (bung/Hg xnis acnon for N G5nfl£xLlVkyaEnL7XXm0fi “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be UIQG a may i... nflmruflly MIMI dnuuviml Vfl nFiuNfl Wm! and on behalf or himself and the Derleficlar/es of the estate 0! cheah Leong Keail, deceased) y Sn Mrau song 5 Or: and other appeals [2023] 3 MLJ 726 la The court at Appeal dtsmlssed the 1" Apptlcahts dam to the lands on the ground that hts clalm is barred by res ttmtcala and estoppel. Aggneved wlth the deelstoh at the Courl et Appeal‘ the 1- Appllcaht filed an applloatlen tor leave to appeal to the Federal court via clvil applreatlen Nu 0B(f)—74-U3/2023(P) oh 24.3.2023 The 1“ Applleaht later wtthdrew the leave appllcallon by filing a hettce ol disoorlllrluance dated 25 4 zuza tn the Federal court. 19 The soltoltprs vepresentlng the Applteahts lh the os hereth, re Messrs lsmatt Khoo A Ass/scales‘ were acllhg ter the 1" Applicant tn the zuts suit Ur||l| the trrteryehers ehtatned a court order to remove Messrs tamatt Khoo A Assoclate and we partner, Mr John Khoo Boo Lat, lrorn repreeehttng the 1'' Applteaht The reason was due to epnlllct at thterest The present os 2c The 1-‘ Appllcant, tclgelther wtth the other two Appllcahts, ttled the 1-l 05 oh so 5 2oz: and the 2“ as on 22.5.2023. both on ah ex pane hasls. lh the 05, they laid clalm tn the lands that were the suhtect matter of the earlrer two suits Namely up the 1971 os betore Muetaphe Hussalh J. and (ll) the 2015 sult before Ahmad shartru and the Appeal 159 med by the 1“ Appllcanl. The Appttcants proceeded to ahlatn the all pane orders wttheut the lthewledge ot the AG and the lnlarveners 21. Here are my reasons Ior allowing the prupnscd imerveners to intervene in the es and tor aettthg astde the ex parte orders Ovggr 15 rule 6 2 (I2) ot the Rules at court 2ot2 22 UrlderOvdev15 rule 6(2j(b) of the Rules ot ceurt 2012, the court may at ahy stage at the pmoeedlngs order that the proposed tntervehers be added as panles This IS to ensure that the matter ts ellectuatty and ootnpls|ely adludlcaled upoh And tor the issue related to the rellet alarmed by the appttcahts to be justly and eenyentently tletermtned 23. I am eattahed that the proposed lhtenreners have a direct legal rhrerest In the matter th the ease ol the AG, he ls the oustpdiah pl publlc charllabls |rusI under seetloh 9 ot the Government PvuneedltlgsAc1 1955 In the case of the tntervehere, they were the reglstered owners and a arrt Gsmflxuvltyaayflxxnloy “Nair a.rt.l In-rlhnrwlll e. u... M van; r... erthr.ll.y Mlhln dun-vlnhl y.. nFluNG mar (mslees of ms wands. -mm they were remaoed by me Apphcams pursuant to me ex pane orders. 24 The Applicants mad the OS (or declaralxons aflectmg the Wands and ula‘ ’ng the ‘ands, but wimuul naming the proposed mlerveners as S pany. And pwceeded Io uhlzm me ex pane uvders I cunssder ms to be an abuse 0! the pmcess ol OOLII1 Hence. I] \s applopriale (D aflow the pmposed InlsNeners' appncauon to Intervene. Abuse otcmm Qmoess by me Applicants 25 The Federa\ Courl m Mansmn Pmpemes Sdn Bhd v Sham Chm Yen L ors [2021] 1 MLJ 527 at 542 — 543 relleraled lhe general pnncwmss an ex pane apphcalmns as Inflows‘ “[35] A: a generanme, no om: would be mac tn mu prujudiu on pmy unless ne rm 2». oppommify a/wag hurdm as/um However ex pans apphcatrons an rvaagmsed as runes:-my and annmonexs m oenzm cwcumxtanccs As ahservedby /mac: ./m Thomas A Edison Lm 1/Bu/Ioc)<(1912) 15 CLRd7§atp Aav Them rs z pmmarypvenpl gowrrwlg me animlmstvalrun o(1usm=e,LhalrIa man rs lo be condvmnodurmeurfl, and mum, is . ganuml mic, rm ommnoum on mm in an. pm/mime ols pafly unless he has me oaporlunrly oraemg huud m drlvnnu em muances occur where/uslfcs could not be done amass me sumac! mans! of the sur! wen preserved‘ and, 1/ ma! rs m danyar cl deurutllon by one parry, 0! yr mmsdrabm or 5000115 Gamay: D5 mlmmenl, me other may com to Illa Calm and ask rs: us vnlarpcsmon awn m the Ibsvnca L:/Ins apponam, on am gonna mm may would Wows araalsr Iruushu man Instant actran Eutwhen he dun: :5 and!/1e Caunls zsked tn dixruylrd um um: nqulnmml or mm»; m olnor side, the pafly mavlng lncws . most semws responsibility - 25. From me prewous suns med by me «~ Apphcanl and me mvulvemsnt uflhe sohcrlors for me Apphcams m the prevmus suns, |hey are iullyaware mat may are seekmg a snrmlar relief as (haw forebears In me 1971 es and me 2015 suI| In hum Ihase previnus smls, Ihe Applxcanls and (hex! lorebear did not succeed to obtain an uvderdedaring me wanes to be men !am1Iy’s pnvale (rust land The 1“ Apphcanfs Appea\ 159 agamst the Hwgh Court asmsmn m me 2015 sum was dismissed by me Court at Appeal on me ground M res pmucaxa Z7 Howe»/ev, the Ap l‘r.an|s persxsl byfihng the OS. Bul this mus. wnhoul naming the proposed imervenels as a parly \ regard that as an abuse 07 the com‘: ex pane pvccess Whaleverlhewr m\evpr2|aIIun ‘s oonoermng 9 sm Gsannxuwyaaguxxnwog «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnumml VI mum pom! me grmmds or mgrnenl cl |he Courl 0! Appeal in me Appeal «as, me os should never nave peen filed on err ex pane basls 2a The Appllcants should rlal have excluded lhe proposed inlerveners lrorn me 05 me proposed lnlerveners are clearly lrrleresled pames All along, they have bee ' cllved ln lhe dlspule over the lands ln real, as reeenfly as 3.3.2023, when lnegreurms nfludgmenlallhe counomppeal In the Appeal 159 was dellvenad 29. The 1“ Apphcam had me ppppnunily la challenge me deuslon ol me calm ol Appeal lrral was rendered in me Appear 159. wmcrr had amrnrea me Hlgh cpurveaeelalon ln ulsrrriss ng rns olarm Io remuve |he lnlerveners as the |ms|ees ol the lands However, me 1“ Appllcanl uplad |o wllrraraw ms leave applleallon al lrre Federal calm. As such, we ruling of me zuls sun as well as me rullng 04 me Appeal 159 slands so. In me us and melr aifldavll In suppprl, lne Appllcanls selenwely nrgnlrgnleu certain paragraphs nflhe grounds 01 luagrnenl ol |he Cuurl of Appeal In lrre Appeal 159 And (hereby clalmed that [here Is a “declaraInn' made by the Cum 0' Appeal in Ihelrlavcur 31 Thls appears al pamgraph 9 or me Applrcanls amuanl ln suppnn amnneu on as 5.202: (Enclosure 2), ‘ rr reads -9; lzerrmrrprr ~ Pemnhorl Dermal urlluk mslaksarlakarl lminih nevsendlnan Llam Need Tana Chm Sang Thuarl msvlglkuh Iupuluun lhhkanuh luyusn lomuln pongllyllhaun hshlwi Amnnnh Llnm Hmd -renp cnar serv; man Ialah amanail persenplnarr- 32 However, the sealed order 0f the Conn oi Appeal in me Appeal 159 are rlol corllaln any suerr ‘dec|aralIon". The sealed order ol the Conn of Appeal VI me Appeal 159 oonlalnsd only me lnllowlng lerrns ‘(a7 Rayuan Pslayu eaalan ar Ialak, (la) Km sebarlyak RMJILDUD no sacara global urlluk klllgi ~\lgn xeslwzzm 596—l)3/2019, w.u2lNcvc)lA;.me.n4/zore. l=—m WCVCNWH ss- aalzmm, dl bayar kepafln nespanaen laerlarna semngga Kellnla lmakluk Kepad: bzyav-In nlnkalur flan (C) Kns sebnnyakRM10,0D0 noel bzyarkapad: Ruponden Keenan.- 33. The Applreanls hrgnlrgmed cenaln pans at me gmunds cl luagrrrenl pl me coun pl Appeal In paragrapns [so] — [55] Hauever, lne App ms mu rm hlghhghl lnal ulllrnalely, me 1-‘ Appllcanrs Appeal 159 was 10 sr~ G5mKxLNkyaEyL7XXmOg “Nair s.n.l mmhnrwm rs. LAIQ4 m mm r... nnglrrnuly mum: dnuuvlnnl vu nFluNG pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-24NCvC-631-05/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) DAVID CHEAH SENG CHYE 2. ) Michael Cheah Seng Jin 3. ) Dr. Khaw Wooi Soon PENCELAH 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) TAN SIEW JOO 3. ) SO MIAU SONG 4. ) LEE WALLY 5. ) TAN CHIN HERNG

Leave to intervene and to set aside ex parte orders – Whether abuse of court process – Whether breach of natural justice and fundamental right to be heard – Whether claim is barred by res judicata and estoppel – Whether finding of the Court of Appeal on private trust is obiter dicta.

13/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f7099d1b-54ac-4c56-9a06-02fb5d7d083a&Inline=true

13/12/2023 15:42:51 PA-24NCvC-631-05/2023 Kand. 81 S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal u—2mcvc—s31—o5/2023 Kand. E1 12/12,2122: 1342 3; In the High Com 0! Malaya in Penzng 1n the State ov Penang, Malaysm Ong atlng summons Na FA 24NCvC—631 5/2023 Da\an1 pevkara Amanah Persendman L1am Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan lndenture Cheah Leong Kean berlankh 5.3.1941 Dan ua1am coma: Amanah Psrsendxrian Mam Hood Yong Char Sang Thuan Cheah Lenng Kean beflankh 25.11.1933 Dan Da1am Alssan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan benankh 3.3.2023 man Yang Am HMR Abdm Kanm. HMR s Nanma Balan den HMR Lvm Chang Fang Dan Dalam Ir\|Br aha FEIBVIQQEH 56, $0 — $5 Nasan Penghakvnan Mahkamsh Rayuan Mendeklarasikan dan I alau Fmdmg av Facts Liam Hood Tong Chm Seng man umam Vndenlure benankh 331941 dan Coma! bertankh 26.11.1933 Cheah Leong Keah ialah Amanah Persendman Dan Dalam perkara berkenaan Harlanah Lot 491 da1am Geran No. 20345. Lo(492 dalsm Gsran No. 20349, 1.01292 dalam Geran 5935 dan Lot 96:: aa1am ssran No. 20273 kesemua d1 Seksyen 1, Banner Georgelmm Daerah ‘nmur Laul. Pulau Pmang Dan Da1am psrkara Pevlarmkan Pemegang Bam un|uk Amanah Persen man Mam Hnad Tang Chor sang Thuan Dan Dalam nerkara mer aha s A5, A3, 59 Akla Pemegang Amanah 1950 m G5omsxWkyaanL7xxn10w “Nana s.n.1...1a.m111... 3.... w my 1... nrW\ruH|:I mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum M1 Dan Da\am perkara - pefkar-a dalam pevunlukkan da\am Kanun Tanah Negara Dan Dalam perkava Kasdah 92 mlsr aha Kaedah 94 dan Kaedah 5 mleraha Penman A Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 (Rules ov com 2012) Between 1 David Cheah Sang Chye 2 Miv:hae\ Cheah Sang Jvn 3 Dr Khaw Wnui Soon .. Applcams And Psguam Negara Mmaysxa Pmposea lnlervenerl Respondent And 1 Tan siew Jan 2 50 Man Song 3 Lee Wally 4 Tan Chm Hemg [Pemegang . pemegang Amanah Awam mam Hood Tong Chor Seng Thuan) Proposed lntervsnsrsl Respondents Heard uogen-er wi\h \n ma Hwgh Court 0! Maxaya m Penang In me S(a|s 01 Penang Malaysia Ongmg ng Summons N F’ cm 47 6/2023 Dalam Penman Deklavasx Mahkamah Tmggl Pmau Plnang benarikh sezoza Mendeklarasxkan Amanah Lxam Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan adalah sa|u Amanah Persendlnan (Fnvals Trust) 2 sm G5<xmsxuwyaayL7xxmog mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! dlsrnlssed Based on me ground thal me 1-‘ Appllcanrs clslm. lnal ma lands are under ms larnlllrs pnvale lrusl, IS barred by res judrcara. 34. ll would have been meal penrnenl lpr lne Appllcarrls lp rnglrllgm paragraprrs [es] — [57] of ma grounds pl ludgrnanl pl lrre courl pl Appeal. wnlan reads 156] Thu), w. agms wl|h ma lnlalvm1a(Iun|hn|wns advnnced by me Awellarll more US However, we Agpul: mm by msorr A: sum: In puaprapvr 55 almve Cuncluslorl [571 M lrra result. In: Appvllx In Imus-li wllh ears as Plarnly‘ lne cpun dl Appeal neld mat the 1“ Applrcanrs appeal did not succeed ldr lrre reason as slated in paragraph [56] pl me grounds ol ludgrnem Trral has relererrpe no me lam man we Court pl Appeal nad amrrned lne llnding ol the dean below regarding res ]udlca|a. And an oral ground, had dlsmrssed lrle 1" Aonlrcanfs anneal. as Al paragraph [56] 04 mar gmunds pl ludgmeru. me cpun or Appeal s|a|ed ‘[55] Om rmlrrrmrprr ad mare. Ahmld Shlhviv bin S.II|Ih'x llrralrrg on In judlcall is ldlqulln ur dilmln .III rm mm xpmnls or Davld crlearl serrp Chye peldre us we as 2 and os 3 c.lmle| be srrsralned wrrerr 5Ul| l lalle Yhnlagn slrlclly rrrrrreeessary hm ldr oomp|e|eness lrr me sake er pub|lcIrl|aIu51‘ we wlll deal wnrl me pallles‘ rlval subslannvs comsmluns an mralrrar me Lands are sublsdsd lo a publlc chanlable mm orvlIva|e1Ns|' Breach ol Natural Jus e and lne F nggmgnlal Rlglrl In be Heard 37. Trra Federal court ln Dr Lourdes Dave Raj a/l Culuz Dulai Ra] V Dr Mrllon Llml slaw Wall & Andr [2020] 5 MLJ 135 relleraled lne well — esrapllsrrad legal pnrlclpls lnal an order made agarnsl a pany lrr breach or ms mrrdarnarrlal rlgnl |a pe rreard ls a breacrr dl namral lusllce wlrlclr renders the order a rrulmy and llaple rp be sel aslde 3:. The Federal Courl sald lal page 198‘ mm -1231:» me firs! quesllorl prlaw, or Lauroes relred an III: on: pmdrrrarrpy an Thamba xaurrdan 5 Am)! v D s c Bank and 5 Ana! [lass] r MLJ an (:5; lMmlarlL1y) rd mm IN DOM! la mcogmu mar ll ls a branch drrralrrral /«slim no: lo accord or Lwmls ms rrgm in be rrrard Murlfandy rs BMMOUIY lor me well - srltlud pnrlclpls prraw mar .rr err4.r mud! ngnfnsl a party Irl bnacn ofllls r 1 SN G5(llKxLlVkyaEnL7XXDlDy “Nana Smnl mrrlhnrwlll .. .r.... M M», r... nflglrullly mlhln dnuurlml VI nFluNQ pmul furldlmurlln right tn [:0 ud is bnncll ornarur-llusuee ll nndort in- me: . rrulhry Ind is tllbll re ea sat asm I351 The semi-id respenaenla eeuneelsuornmee mlmue was no Dfljudfoe to or Lourdes nor being given notice or the nmial review proceed/W5 and/nor ma eppenuniry ta bl naere ar lhe same‘ on ma beer mar Dr Loamas was new were me Pmtlrmrlary lnaulw cernrnlrree am: the we, and me would alm- pmusadlrlgs before me we was below me Nlyli courr arid Court‘ a(Apuoa/ m we mdlnral ravrew proceeding: we rem: rm aorllurllran as me pnnmplea oi nzmrauustica er. not sensm by reason L1lDr Lourdes having me eaponurnry lo dsland hmlsullill me domastlc Inqlmy praoeemngr me new to M rmrre on ma plrflnullr Incl: or rm Insunt appeal, exrerma to all new of me pmcxlding: wmen alveerea mm, am: lnrs irwuaes tllnudlclatprmeedngs me Cour! omppeai wilri mspscl orvsdiri rialconsldsmlg Mn miscarriage ornrerne surrerea by D! Loumcs man mmpaseu a lmdmg elgurlr on him annraemclea ms llgnl re Do new in ms eeranea lo nnly numng in a plea or rrutrgelien more me we - 39 Having tailed to obtain the renal he craved in me 2015 suit and me Appeal 159, the 1“ Applicant elected to relriigeie the same issue via me as herein lain on an ex pane basis that tailed to respeu the pmposed inierveners right to he heard. 40. ii is my linumg mar the ex pane arders eereinea by me An were made in breach ol me pmpusad interveners' tundamentai right to be neere. such breach or naturai iuslice, in my opinion, renrlers me ex pane oraere null and void‘ and liable to be set aside. M. The lnlervenere were me regisrerea owners and trustees atthe lands, Imtii mey were replaced by the Apelieerris pursuant ie me ex pane orders. The Applicants are tuily aware that the iritervellers were me registered uwners and trustees ol the lanes Morecver. the 1“ Applicant had attempted in ciaim the lanes in the 2015 sun and in the Appeal 159, but are not suuzed. 42. The solicitors tor the Applicants, Messrs Ismail Khon & Associates and its partner Mr John Khou Eco Lai, were at one point representing the 1" Applicant In the 2015 suit The knowledge ot the sellcitals Is imputed en the 2" and 3~= Applicants In one lriattel 43 As the registered owners and trustees of the lands at the material time, the inlarveners had a direct isgal Interest in the lands Thus‘ the ex pane eraers nblained by the Applicants had enemy ellecreu me illtevesl 07 the tnterveners By not naming the intervenels as H pany and proceeding ex pane, the Appllnants had denied nerurel justice to the :2 sm Gsmnxuveyaayuxxniog «en. s.n.i nuvihnrwttt r. u... M mm the nltgtlrnttly MIMI dnuminlrl VII .nuue pnlui lrllerveners. In me case ol the AG, he has been prevenled lrorn carrylrlg OIJI nle duiy as lrle cuslodlan cl me said lrllsl. In lrle Dfemlsesl me preposed lnlsrveners‘ appllcallorl lo lrllerverle and lo eel aslde lrle ex pane orders oplalrled by the Appllcarlls ought Ia be allowed. 44 The Federal cdllrl ln Manelpn Propermsllpra) rllled lrlal an ex pane ordercarl always be se| aslde. And when an order was oulalned ex pane, lne nnnelple ol lllrlclus omclo does not avbly Trle Federal colln sald (at page 543 - 544): ‘[42] me EOIIII lnok mle Mme Drelmlefll Dmclloe amoml DVSc1l(x1lIers|D Wucaed ll. an ex pane raenlon In rllaxlrv; aw|lca1lorlslorTDDiItrado dascllpfrorl order) urlaev 5 la cl lle rm [Travis Dasmptrorv Ac! 2M1] ll war «ulna lrlel male was Reliving wlellg or lllagal ll. such a WII:1lD!.!Im)S ln. aflacwd perm Velillll Ihe rlght bu applyw $€|a$IdB an ex pine mo lal para: [59] a [£2]; All ax Dam oldur un ml-ys be sel Islde Ina . noun Is not vllmllr ewlcle lo revlew a ma omallled ex pane anrlollurr Delleded nle nurll oval. enecled person lo army to rel erlde an ax pm me lr a llgrll wrllcrl exlsll averand abovelhs elrlerclull l1msdI€$ aulleul. In nlrll ml Is llxllelly wrlal ln. apptllams dld ln lnla can In me Hlgrl COM?‘ belawl lfley nnplled In lrllervelle nnd la 59.1 nslde rrle ex pane mo- Tne Appllcarll 05 la. barred by Ree Jlldlcala and Eeloppel 45. ln me 2n15 Skill‘ «re 1" Appllcarll represented the henellclanes M the esla|e enrle deceased Tne deceased rlad crealed me sald lmsl aver me lands lrlal formed ole bone uloorllenllon unne zms sllll ln lrle 2015 sull, me 1" Aopllcanl clelmed lhal the sald Irusl ls a pllvale lanlily lfusl, and rlel a publlc crlarllable lrllsl. 46. me calm 01 Appeal rlad dllly eerlsldered lne basls oi |he 1“ Appllcanrs clai ms Appeal 159 Trlls ls rellecled al paragraprl [27] pl lne grdllrlds dl llldgnlerll dune colln cl Appeal, wnlen reads. 1271 lrl sull 1, Davld crleul seng crly. mlllallded |hl| ln. lllllll vlfltellby me Tmlilnr appelrlled nle lrllee sans as llllsleee Io hullfl lne Pagnfla runled ‘LL-Em Hand Tlng Cmr seng rnllerr rwnlerl ln cnlrleee lranslallarl lneml anfiesllal wolshlfl hall or allarl allprled wlln crllnese cllllllre and ellslarll as lesllned by me experlwrllless. Dr Ian AI Eaey ls al Dflvak mm nllslrlomed Dytlva Taslatar havlrlw clearly observed lrle rllles adalrlsl pevvalllllllls lrl respecl ul lrle |Vu£\ our lrlll nlllldlng or he Pagoda and plwlslarl ellllllds ll; ulllld ll ~ 47 In eppoelng lrle 2015 Suil, me pmposed lnlerveners asserl max me said lrllsl crealed over me lands ls a pubhc charilable lrllsl And lhal me l 3 SN G5nfl£xUVkyaEnL7XXnl0fi “Nair Smll nurlhnrwlll be UIQG In may l... nflfllnnllly ml. glam. Vfl .rllllla Wm! 1-‘ Appttcartrs 2015 sutt, ctatnung tnet the lands ts under a pnvale tarntty lrusl. ts barved by res judtcata ana esmvner. 4a. This is rettectea at paragraphs [31] and 133] at the grounds at tuagnteht ot the court at Appeat, which reads. “tau tn oppostttart sa Klau Son‘ rat chang, ran Srevntoo, tee watty and Tan chtrt Hemg natlsnlvely wttnI:r- pantenaaa that the tnaertture ptatr-ry evtnoed a publlc ch ’ blnnnlhecattse Mme presence attha cvuclalwolds -utwrr trust to attuw attpersprrs who progsss ms suuahrsr rnlrgron In warshrp arm parrarrrr ralrgmua cammorvss ur mniurmtry wrtn trr. t9tmdIn:1 mlfgmn at the sat: pagoda" In the trtnartture [33| tt u atsp arnpnasrsea tnatay vtnue ouurttcs Musuphs rt ssltnsdecman matte an 2- septentaer 1962 pursuaru ta ntgh Cnurl at F. -lug Ongtnalmg Summons Na. 357 cl 1971‘ the iubpem rnatterarra tenets saughl tn the sun are barnd by us tuntcata srta ulnppll “ 49 The Conn pt Appeal rutaa that the I" Appttt:aht's 2015 stttt, on aenatr at the beneflciartes at tne estate at the deceased. was barred by res tuutcata. This appears at paragraphs [54] ana [55] ot the grounds of tudgrrtent at the Courl of Appeat, whtch reads‘ 1541 cpnseauernty, we nrta that there ts rte mluilnnlhm by Justin Ahnua Shlrlvlain Sallnh who hlld that suttt ts haw-d by us lndlcala try resuarr cl Jusnca Mttsuphs Hnssatlfs aeotstort auteu 2 saptarrtasr tan: In trns resped we turther find and note that Jumcn rttturtspna Husssrns dectstnn tnat I5 evtdewed by ms ground: at judgmlnl dllad 2a Attgus| tsaz terrtatns vatta norwtthstanotup nu kn praar ms never drawn up by etrher at me pamu Dumtam to o :2 r to at me Rutes at the mph CattrI198I1.AI are as we are mncamedt me aeerstan ol Jusllcs Mustapha Huiutn has Devi ttnmmnkably rnatte and that s attrhar matters here [set our afllrmallon 51 Jun’ Alumna Sh tutr hln sattews llnfllnq on us tuatuta II afluqulh In dlxmlsl an Inn mu Ippuli or new chaan seru; Chyn aetare us the os 2 and os 3 cannot be wslalnsd when Sml I tarts maugh slnnlly urmeoessary put tor porrtptatsrrasr tn the take at pttbltc uttetest. we wttt aaat wtlh Ins pames‘ rtust auastarrtrve mnlemiorts an whether the Lands are suotactau ta a pupttc ehsrrtaate Imsl at nnvale trust " so The present 05 Mad by the Appttcahts is the third attempt by the beneltciianes at the estate at‘ the rtepeaaea Ia tay ctatrh lo the lands Based on Ihe ecnlenlton that lhe Wands are (hetr IEVIIIIYS pnvale INS1 lands ll ts my findvng that the as hevetn is srrrtitarty barred by res judtcala and 8510999‘. IA SIN G5mHxL1vhyaEyL7xxmDy «war. s.r.t mmhnrwm r. u... m van; t... nngthnuly sun. dnuuvtnnl VII .nurte amt 51 Tne cuun nas power under section 11 av lne Schedule pv me Couns ovaudicalure Ac11964|u disnriss1ne Applicants‘ clarrn on me ground vnel lne dispule over me lands is res ludlcala pevween them and ine proposed Inlerveners. The said provision reads 111 Resludlcala Puwsv 1o dlimlu or may prlvusdlrvgs wnsrp me rnsner in qusvstlnn is res ludlcnla bulwurl vne |>iVlI51,or men by mason p1 rnulucrplrcre, pv pmceedlngs in any aeurrs ine pmceedlngs dugnr nm lo be mminued 52. on res judlcals, me Caurl ov Appeal nad reacned lne vollawlng conclusion at paragraphs [51] - [52] av their grounds at ludgmem: 1511 Aller due curlslderfillun, we are in me vlew lml special clmumslames which exclude rne upnlrcemn allesludlcaln or issue esropnel are dnly alllacted updn rne nlslnrlvv dernensuaung lne rnresnpld redurrevnenl ov nleqaiiw. Vick 0' lullsdldlon urnaua wnrsn has occaxloned in me onainal a:|larl Nonevnsim, ms piarnlriv may mil be denied lne oppollunny In oulsus me vmn udlurl N specpl cl-purnsranm dlnjlze lnsnr ll urnusrvurvne plllmflm dn sd PM in irlolhelwny. spuprsl pnaurnsvenpss flu mi Brent: 5 new ullngary warvanlmg rne nmsull M a vresn anion hm operere In deny lne DuIsm|almeV|esV1 serum norwrrnslanmnu lllewalflyv lack M iurlsnmnn or vraud nas been nrads mn ms is seen in cnss Pok cnoy lsuwa) wnere lne nesn anion premised on naud was sliuwea 1a procesd became n was vauna, on me veal: and snpunrsunm pv me use (ml 1| was urllus1 var lne plaln|M|hu1llI|o prulrv on in. lraud 1| perperrersd an lne mun [52] Based on rne veas never II is Dial?! 1r1a|Davld Chsah Sena cnye nsrlner pleaded IVIEQIIW1 lack av iunsmupn nor vraua la ruslrvy Hm lnsI1|u|lon uv sun 1 Na also norluedad virus is no case aulhonly 1ns1 public cnanuele uusl and /or private lNs| am a specrsl I:l|agnry Wham in. duclnna nl .es ludlcam puglrl nm vp nvmy * 53. Slrloa lne sumevn mafler av lne Applicanls presenl 03 and me 1-‘ Appllcanfs 2015 surl penarn to me same lands, and are based on lne sanre cause pv aciipnl vaeis, issues and relieis, I firm ma| lne App|lcanls' claim aver 1ne lands IS paned by res ludll:a|a The finding av lne Ccurl ov Aggeal on g ’ ale (ms ’s obiler male 54. Tne decision o1 me ceun ol Appeal in me Appeal 159 nae decided lna1 me 1-‘ Applicant’: claim [0 ins lands, on the argument lnel lne lands are under a pm/ate 1arnilylrus1end not a public cnarnanle lmsl. Is barred by res ludlcala Tnal is the ratio deciderldl oi the Courl av Appeal Tne 1“ Applrcanl cannol now seek any relievand claim me lands again, using the same argunvenl lnal lne lands are under a pnvale Iamlly lrusi 1 5 sm G5<xnnxuvnysanL7xxnl0i1 «mu. s.n.1 ...n.mn r. .1... e may r... uvnn.l-r mm. mmn VI srlulva v-mxl 55 eranleu lnal ma cam 91 Appeal men pmseeded lo pm 9 men Vlsws ocncemlng lns lnlarpralallpn of the lndsnlure. ln mus vagam, me caun pl Appeal agreed wllh lna argument advanced by me 1“ Applicam lnal lne sale lmal ls a prrvale lmsl 56 In thelr grounds of judgment, me com :2! Appaal sam: -{s»:1nu.s,wa ale ol ma vlaw mal lna -ma nature of lna lms| ln ouasuorl have will depend on me corlilruwon pl lna Cudul ma lndenmm opmsxlually rem aaalnsl ms backdrop nl cnmaaa cllllllm and suslmn see Hm Vlk cnal s Hay vaw Tang 5 Anal [1952] 2 Ml.) 221 so {am We have aavslully man daules 10[a)lnd lllmmalms coma: and clause llal — (cl av lne lmanvms and um nm the raslamrs dammam lmamnn V! la have me Pagoda bum as a amaulsl anaasual nall lanna Taslztzoru «amlly and aaspamama lp wnrshln ancsslms as uaslman by ms sole axpsll wllness Dr ran Alfiusy VII declphellng me name uamlalanly mm lauaanalapanlsausayvong (hall) cm sang tancsston Thuan lallan Llim Hand Yhnna Cher Sena man xlmlvg mgemer meanlx Buddhlsl anpaaual nall / allaroiworshlp [ell ln afldmun, the Teslainr navm anvmmaa nus ln-as sum ml nm me Exaculuvjln nnple-namnlswlsnss unuama lmenlurv nmnaalsnlwlln cnlnssa wnura nnd cuslflm on Dulldllvg ansawal wurshlp nall l BN3! »ma.a.n responsmlllly I5 vested only an nula llnenge mn lna same Teslzlors surname mesa are commonly done by weallhy cnlnase lamlllas ln cmna. Yarwnn And Malaysla aocuvdlng us Dr van wnomwa am sallsraa Ii an amply quslflied experl on lnls mmerbnsed on he! numculum unas [n21 Be Ina! as II may‘ we in nnmml (ha! lheve ls alsa lmsnllpn mlna Teslnml m pemlll all psnana who nmless lns Budflhlfl mlnglon lo wmmp and peflnml rsllglaus cualnanlas VII oonlanvllly wlln ms auaunm valiglun .n me pappaa We mwnver «nu ma: mls ls ma rsslamrs Iewlsnt Intvllmn xubamlnaled In n-a darI\4nBn| lnlzmlun ol pulualng an ancuual wurshlp nall / anal pamculany zw mm usmg lns word 'aIlvw‘ .n cllusu Mb) Mlhe lnslenme [ecu Cormanuemly am slnce lna Teslalnrr dominant Inlsnlmn IS to have lne Pagudn ml: as An ancaml wan-p nan /altar. wl find nu: ma mm which In: bean cnatcu for mu purpou um um conulllm a puhlhc chlrlubln lmanlpllowlng Slv Han Nu: m. V um Klm sang a. Ann! [1955] 22 MLJ142 male wnmon J nalu as fnllawx , wlm regalfl lo Ihe anoeslval npuss mwannlp l| I: clenr Ihrs was a snnna for lnmlly purpasas, and I do ml flunk l|l euenllal pm/ale nalma V5 uflsuad by the pmvmon my me dnvlbullon al alnls nr loud |a pool tvavnllvs DY la alher pool psrwns wtm mvgm came up Worship an ms house or Irv: In me vlninlty, Var I lsal ma pnmslan was oon|empl:4ed by ma same: pnmnly as aflordmg «manual asslslance to an adlvlly 01 gm mm W cnnnecuorl mm lna ancsslval house and ml as an aulxmnce cl . pananal namra lp ma allmmpn 15 sm Gsamxxuvnyaapuxxnlug “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. l... M mm .. anan.u.y mm: dnuuvlnnl VI arlum puns! pl ms oondmorl pl me your suns rlslghbeulmud ar av nnpmnsnse rlrnsrsnls passlng lnrpugn n lvlnn vltw n wind nel only ll lnsrs an absence pl e ssnsrsl snsnlslsls lnlzmmn ln rsspssl nlmls lnlsl. hm n my pprrnen II has rlal lnsl mulls e4emen| wrnsn n rehglaus Vusl charkable In law rnllsl possess tsllnrollrv opalsa. 06 [1949] AC 426‘ [msl 1 AH an my I have rsasrrea me corlclusmns, aeponlmly lrlal ms mm In rvsaacl 0' ">9 WWI. Waugh Wssesslrlu no general cnarnaple -nlenllen, ls s walla cnsnuols must but lr-al lns mm -n vewed or ms anoewzl hou pl wprsrnp canrm| es rspsnlsu es snanmals, 2IHdl!|Haliful1,lV|A‘|i7fl ms lampmsrs addafl [Ml Mnleaver ln Re Nun. asseassa llsssl MLJ as, ll was held lnal In be a chamy ln law, me lrusl rnnsl be eslnbllshed lor purposes wrnsn ave sxclnswsly cnamaple. see also Nal sang Nlarly v rrrs Tnmasi mlns Pvasblflhrlan cnursn ln srnqspcvs Reqlllered A ols [was] 3 MLJ 311 we Ivvlaln unmrwllwed lrnn me 1. nor had lnlanded ls aslapllsn a llusl whlch was In be exclusively snssnnsls I351 ln me nremlses, we one and held lrlal lnere ls no Qensml charllama lnlernnn ny |he rsslanpr |n mvesl lne Lands luv purposes m vehgleul chamy psr-srally rrrs Irunwllkhwu uutnfl bylhn Yuulo s amslnss . privlh (mil man Is lncapspla pl Cy-was upon hllure puns lrusl spnlrary tn mar as laund Ind nsla by Julllce Alnnns snsnnr znn Salleh win concurred wlln Justine Muslavha Hussaln” 57 The courl pl Appeal oplnea lnal me said Irusl is a prlvate lrusl Bu\ lhal eonnnenl was made ln pesslng. Hence. apller alcla. Tnsl llrrding was npl essenllal vol lne aesnnon or me calm ol Appeal ln lne Appesl 159 Nsvenneless, lne Ceurl ol Appeal maugnl ll dsslrahle lo provide llselr views, given me rwal conlenllcns ol me panies on (NS palm 53 lrl the own words omre Courl oi Anneal- -[551 Our almrrnallsn m Jnmloe Ahmad snannr bln sallens rlnalng an Iusludlcala Ii aasquals In msnnss all the was appeals ev Damd cnssn Sung Shy: were us In. cs 2 an as 3 ssnnpl be suslsrnss when sun I lsrls rnellqn nticlly ululu:-Illly hullnv cnmplmmvlsl in lns sake el puhllc nneresl we wlll flul wllh um a mu‘ flnl inhslnnllw cnnumlons on wrmhnr 0 Lands as suns-em: Ia - vuhllc I:hu(uNI lmsl or pnms lmst’ 59, ll ls nlsln mat me coun cl Appeal had smnneu Ihe llndlng ollne courl below regardlng res lualcale The Court or Appeal lnerelore dismissed lhe 1" Appllsanrs Appeal 159 on me ground 0! res judlcala. Tha| IS me rsllo decldendi so The Courl v1 Appeal expllcnly slaled that ll IS unnecessary to deal wlln me rrvsl canlenllor-s ol whelher the lands are sublecl lo a nu 17 srn Gsamxxuvhyaanuxxnlvv “Nair s.nn nuvlhnrwm es UIQG e may r... snnn.nl mm: dnuuvlml Vfl srlum pensl eharltable trust cl! a private iainily trust Albeit that the court oi Appeal proceeded to do so, ior cempletenesa in the sake oi public interest 61 Given that the iinding oi a private ttust is not essential to the decision oi the Court oi Appeal in the Appeal 159, the saine rriust pe regarded as opiter dicta. Accordingly, it does not have oinding weight. otherwise. tithe hnding that the said tmat is a private trust was the ratio decidendi. the 1' Applicant's Appeal 159 would have been alluwed Obviously that was not the outcome oi the Appeal t59. 62. In an earlier pan oi their grounds pi iudgntent, the coun oi Appeal had teocg ed that the cure issue peicte them is the issue oi res iudi ta. And that tnetv decision on the said issue will determine whether it s necessary ior them to decide on the remaining findings with regard to the nature and consequence oithe s trust 53. Paragraph [431 oi the grounds oi ludgineni oi the Court oi Appeal reads ‘[43] we have therelaie in the exerase oipurappetiate iiirietiaii reviewed tustice Ahiiiad snahiir pin sallahs ground at iudgiiiaht in the light at the contentuaiis rlnw advarioed more us it iserris me at Inn we iiiust iiist detdnriiiia tho iliidtnp en ru iudtcat. as this will :1 rate whether it raiiiaiiia lllcilllvy thmaitar to daiaiiiitiia IM rsriiatiitiip tiiidliigi an the IIIIMM and coiiaaguiiiess oittia Imst as tiedueathed trvthstestatpr- 64 Aiter considenno the issue of res iudieatar the court oi Appeal amrnied the iindtng oi the court tielow un ies iudicala. Arid stated in no uncenain terms that such aiiirrnation is adeqtia|e lo dismiss the appeal oi the 1“ Applicant in the Appeal 159. it iotlows that it was not necessary ior the cpun di Appeal to decide an the nature and consequence oi the said trust 65. To sum up, the ‘by the way‘ opinion ol the Court at Appeal, I e. that the said trust is a private tmst as not essenual to their decision in the Appeal 159. The ratio decidendi is the amtrnation oi res ludicala On the ground at res iudicata. the 1" Applicants Appeal 159 was dismissed 36 In the preirllses,|ne1“ Applicant and the ulnar Applicants cannot be permitted in telitigate the same claim over the lands, based on the same argument Ina! the lands are ttrtdera pill/ate farnlty trust. In the Appeal t59, the coun oi Appeal had clearly decided that such a claim by the 1" Apptlcant is barred by res ludtcata 18 SN Gfihllflxuvhyafiyflxxflloy "Nate Sunni nuvlhnrwlll be u... M van; i... nnglrrnllly MVMI dnuuvlnrll v.. aFlt.ING ptmxl Order NA app canons try the Applicants 67 To add irisilli Io iniury, irie Applicants filed uirae applicalions ior dlspusal oi me riiarrer on a point ol law umler Order 14A oi the Rules oi coun 2012. Trirs was done in me mids1 oi exliauslirig affidavits and mine wriuen submissions in re5Decl cl irie Dwnosed lmervenllon ario senirig aside bl me ex Dane onlers The Applicanls contend lriac iriere is no quesliori on lacls And «rial ilia 05 is sullable lo be disposed oi hased on a pbirii bl law under Order 14A ol me Rules ol couri 2012. as Under Order MA onrie Rules o1Cuun2D12, lhe oourl rriay dS|8mIIl'Ia ariyqueslicn cl law or consrrunion pl ariy docurrienl wriere ll appears that -(a) sucri queshon is sunable lor oelerrriiriaiiori wilriom rrie lull lllal ol Ihe amipn, aria lb) sucli oeienninalian will finally delerrriine irie enrire cause or insurer or any claim or issue therein 69. Trie Cmm D1Appeal in Pelmleurri lilasrbnal and y Ksralaan Negeri Tereriggariu & arrozlrer appeal [zoos] 4 cm 337 ar 353 observed (hsl a preliminary quesiiori srioulo be carelully and precisely irariien so as to avoid crmcunies cl rnierpreialion as no what is crie real allesliuri wriicli is being nrdered la be Irled as a preliminary issue 7n. Tne Order MA appllcatlon filed by me Applicants reads ‘1 a ri wi Amarl-III Llim Ham Tang Char serig mrari ia lsri suaiu arrianarr Derserldlrlnn flan bukan ariiariar. khalml l mni (‘public l crranlaple lrusrl din ialari dl buiusliari, dl lelflllkani ai eapali darl l arau oi perlirnoanakari irieiaiui kflerallflarll fakla aari ilrroana ~ urldang pl-ri rinamiarriari Rayuarl pain 3 3 ma uteri Vang AM Hakim Mahkamih Rayuin Abdul rurini NMR s Nariuia aslari can HMR Llm crrprig Fang uunra sehulal sunm ln|er airs oi pererippari as sehlrlgga as Alasari penqrrmnisn isrpuria cl Judgmenll 2 Dan aleh nu. seriula prriali dan rriana » rriaria Mahkamah dl lkull uleh keplllusan Marirarnari Rayuan mslulul doktrlrl rnlaraiia Remludlranla‘ car. siare Diciili 3 Juflem flu‘ Msrilmrisn prpa memplmyal kuasa Immk melurlzskanllrldakarl irii berdasmkarl A MA u llsl Kaeflah —K3Bd’iih Mahkamah znlz 7i In my view. llie Order MA appllcallon filed by me Applicanls is unwarranted and rleleciiye. Firsl, lriere is plainly a dispute oi lacls and findings‘ which mlgm to pe ventilated through an iriler panes nearing oi «lie os To , me oispuie wini regard in me eiieel pl me nnclings ol me courl of Appeal in me Appeal 159 Thai issue rias already been brougm Iolhe lorelrorii via me applieaiioris meo by me proposed iriierireriers lb eel is srn Gsamxxllvhyaanuxxnlvw “Nana s.r.i nuvlhnrwlll be mad a may i... bflnlnallly MIMI dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl mi aswde the ex pane urders. There 13 na need «or me Appncams to add to the \ayer or lmgalmn by filmg «us Order MA apnlucanons 12. Second. this \s not a wnl aclncm wnere were wm be a full trial. This Is an cmgmahng summons that win he detidad based on amuavn evidence. men; is already |o be an Inter panes heanng In decvde an the pendmg appucanans tor rmervennon and sewng zswde. Thmwmg an Order HA appncanon Inlc me rmx ws qune unnecessary 73 Third, there was actuauy no queslxon 01 law posed by the Applncanls for \he courts determmahon. Rather than 3 question 07 law. lhe Applicant nns put forward a prayer for the com to aware that me sa \msI \s a pnvale |Vus|, mslead of a public dlamable INS! Bill that is precxsew the Issue ror determination in me pending appncanans mm by me proposed Inlerveners to set aswde me ex pane orders 74 For me reasons above, I dlsrmssed the Or\1er14A applrcanons med by Ina Applrcanns. 75 Inna Applicants msagres wan the decision ollhe Cuurl or Appeal and me mterprelauon mane grounds or judgment onne cuun 0! Appeal In me Appeal 159, the 1“ Apphcanl should have connnuea wan his apphcahan «or weave |o apple‘ to ma Federal Court. 75 lnleresnnglyy the Weave question posed by the Appllcams Included the !aI\awing '\ Whmnsv when the own ul Appam make 2 new Vwndrng on Ian: and law Much wax m:| nan. by me Hugh Court. can the Court nlAwea\ msrmuud (Iva apvul on n.. grmmd oi ..s...a.m-. and esloppa\”’ Costs 77 Order 59 nAs1fl or me Rules a! com 2012 reads’ ‘Hz Cmlsdueln unnecessary clmms or wssues 10 ssr. in) ‘H addmnn la and nol m aeraganon many mm pmulmn .n ma Order. where a party has ram to anamnn any chum ar Issue wmch he has vawsed In any pmoaaunrgs, and has thereby unnecessarfly or umeasonaoly Dmtvanad, or addnd m we was m mmpleuly nl Imsre pvooeedlngs, the Com! may older man the wan cl Ihal pany snnn not be anuma m whola or n. pan, or mm any cnsls cncasmned by man damn onssua m any cnhuv puny man be pmd by hum to ma| unnar parry reqamlan av We mflmme or me muse or maller’ 2o srn Gsamsxuvnyaaguxxmog «wn. snrm ...n.ryn .. med m mm .. mn.u.y mm: dnuumrrl y.. mum M.‘ Berkenaarv Hananah Lol N0. 491 da\am Geran No. 20345‘ Lot No. 492 dalam Geran No 20349‘ La! No 292 da\am Geran Na. 5925 din Lot No. 960 dalam Gevan 20273 kesemua dx Seksyen 1. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Timur Lam, Pulau Plnang Da\am nerkara Amanan Parser: an Liam Hand Tong cnar Seng Tnuan Vndenlule cnean Leung Kean benarikh 3 3.1941 Dan Da\am Cndicfl Amanan Perssnmnan Lwsm Hood Tong chm Seng Tnuan cnean Leung Kean benankh 25.11 1935 Dan Da\am perkara Urusan‘ Pemadblran Bayaran Cukax Tanan Temmggak oxen Pemahen » Pemoncn Bsrkenaan Hananah - Hananan Amanah Perssndman |Pnvale Trust) Lwam Hood Tong Chow Sang Thuan henkulan Penman Deklarasx Mahkamah Tinggw Pwau Pinang benarikh 3.5.2023 Dan Dalam perxara Periannkan Pemegang aam unluk Amanah Persendman (Pnva|s mac) mam Hocd Tong Char Seng Tlwan benkulan Penman Deuaras. Mankamah Tlnggv Fulau Pmang s e 202:4 Dan Da\am psrkara Inter ans 3. 45. 45. 59 Ana Pemegang Amanah195O Dan Dalam psrkara - perkaua dalam perunlukkan dalam Kanun Tanah Negara Dan m G5oMxuvnyaanL7xxn\0v «mm. saw ...m.mn .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 71: After lne deolslcn nl llle cpurl al Appeal In llle Appeal lss, me 1“ Applrcanl had med an applraalron lor leave Io appeal lpllle Federal ceurl. aul subsequently wrlrldrew NS Federal coun apphcallon Durlng lne rrearrng, I ouerled me oounsel lor me 1* Applloanl about me reason lor sud’: wllrldrawal The counsel lor lrle I‘ Appllcanl suggesled lrlal ll ls unnecessary lor lllrn lo appeal because llre Court ol Appeal rlad agreed wlllr nls argument llral me sald lnn.l n. a pnvale |rusl ln olller werde. me 1“ Appllcanl lell lnal rlad wnn. ll anylrnng, (he prpppsed lmsrveners shuuld be me ones lp appeal 79 Tnerealler. lne Apnlloancs prooeeded lo file me 05 on an ex parle basis and oblalrled lrle ex lzarle orders Thereby sleallnlly laklng me lands awayl based on lhelr ellegallorl lrlal lrle courl el Appeal had made a dealarallen ln lhelr lavour llral the lands are under a pnvale lannly (ms! l lnrnk llle Appllcanls rlad unneoessarlly and unreasonably pmlracted me nlaller, and esealalecl lrre llllgallpn eosl lcl be lnourred by lne pmpclsad lnlervenuvs an The Appllcancs lunller nled lllree applleallens under order MA ollrre Rules ol courl 2012. oslenslply lo save ludlclal llrne and eesls. Bul lrral ls yet anolner lnalanee ol fihng unnecessary appllcatlnns, and addlng to me costs pl [hears proaeedlngs a1 Havlng regard to me luregulng, I oonsldered ll approprlale lo order lal glunsl oosls M RM5D,DOU lo be pald lo (M lrllervensrs, wllh rupeol lo Enclosure e and Enclosure 2l mill: 1“ cs lnl Iaml wsls nl RMwl0l‘Ifl lo pe pm .a lne AG.wlI1l respeel la Erldnsure 9 and Erlclusule la ln lne 1" 05: and La) global coils pl RM5L7,flDD la be peld |o me lrnerveners. wlln vaspe-:1 ol Enclnsms 15 and Erllimura ls rn ms 2- os concluelpn 32 under order 32 rule 6 ol lrle Rules or cdun 2012. an ex pane order may be sel aslde. I suppose lrle rallonale lor lrral rule ls benause an ex pane order ls grarlled wllnoul lrle benell| el llearrng me elrler sll1e.Thal ls why ‘the party mavlng an ex pane applrcalrpn rncurs a most serlour. raspnnslli y‘ To make lull and crank drselusure, even ol nlarlers wrrlch are ncl| rl llls lavour. l lear me Applloanls have lallen sllon pl suon IN Gsomxxuvkyaalnvxxnlvw “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm re UIQG a may l... nrwlrullly ml. dnuuvlml Vfl nrlurlfl Wm! 63. Now, mm me benem uI hearing suhmssvons Iron: me prcpused inlerveners, I accspnhal Ihe ex pane ordevs were wmngIy granted. I must make (mugs rigm by semng aside me ex pane orders 34 For the reasons above, I gave leave Io the proposed Inlerveners Io Intervene in the OS And sel asme the ex Délfle orders Dated 7 December 2023 Q Quay Chew Soon Judge Mgh Cuurl uI MeIeyeI Fenang CMI Di siun NCVC 1 Qgflfli John Klmc Ban LeI (Mssvs Iemeu Klloo A /lssucmlas) Ierme Avnflcarus src Nan Mohammad Aysem hm Hap Humm‘ src Numl Famana mm Khahd‘ src Erma wam mm: mm Keflee‘ src um Syazwzm MIII Abdul Azlz (Almmey General‘: Chambcls) Ierme P’ Pmnosefl Innervener Ung cmn Kye and am 116 Wow {Mews P090, Cllnn 5 Ung) lnr me 2m Pmpoeea Imuvenen 22 em esmmuw.,.e.uxxnIo,, «mm. Sum nmhnrwm be HIGH m mm .. nr1gIn|HIy mm: dnuumnl VI nFIuNG puns! Dalarn perkava ln|Er alla Allnan 92 Kaedan 94 dan vile! alla Aluran 5 Kaedah 5 Kaedan — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 [Rules ol Calm 2012) Between Davld cnean Sang cnye Mlohael cnean Sang Jln Dr. Khaw W001 Soon Appllcanls And Tan Slew Jon So Mlau Sang Lea wally Tan cmn Hemg (Pemegang — pemegang Amanan Awam Llam Hood Tong cnm sang Tnuan) . . Proposed lnlervenersl Respondenls >mmg Gmlmds ol De lnlmducuon 1 These lwu maners were heard logelnev (culleclively “os"), namely: La) an ex pane Ollgmallng Summons No FA-2JNCv<2-BM-D5/2923 1‘1“ on am an an exvana Onglnltlng Summons No PA—2ANCvCr747—D5/2023('2" as“) 2 am os concern a lmsl known as ‘Llam Hood Tong Cher sang Thuan’ (“said trust") The sald lrusl was eslabllshed under a deed of Indenlure used 3 3 ml and a codlcll dalad 5.3.1941 execuleu by one chsan Leong Kean ('dlI:I:sad'). 3 The sand (lust pennin to low pleas: of land known as (1) Lcl N 491 under Geran No 2oa4a,( Lol Nu 492 under Geran No 20:49, Na. 292 under Gemrl No. 5935 and [N] Lul Nu. 960 under Gerarl 2027:, all m Saksyen I. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Tlmuv Laull Pulau Plrlang (collectively ‘I:nds”). 4 sm G5(1lKxUVkyaEyL7XXnlDg “Nair smnl ...n.mn n. n... m mm .. mn.u.y snn. m.n.n vu nrlum pmul 4. The I‘ and 2"‘ Appricanvs are beneficiaries nf the estate of the aeeessenn They are me green grandsons vflhe deceased 5. The Applicants had omenneo nrne lollawmg coun orders on an ex pane basrs (Lx>4\ec1we\y ‘Ix pen-no ordlrs (3) m nno was, nex vzme emeoeneo s n 2o23(‘1-ax rum nmnr') flrndev nn. 1!‘ ex on 2 under. . declamlmn was orenneo men nne earn mm rs a Drwne \ms| (and mi e Duhhn: chanlame wet). hassd on nrre mounds on maonnernn nnenea 3 a znzaomne Cowl ompvean, and In) m Ina 2'» as‘ an ex Dana onoeroaneo 27 e 2023 (ernenoee on 24 1 20237 n'z"< u mm entail Urnoer nne rv ex me nrder e rseaerenron was gvamsd \h:| nno Apphcanls be ippmmed .s the nrusnees onne sena nmsn. Am Ihnnlve Annnneernns he regnslzmd as me vvaollemrs ollhs landi. s. The proposed nnnerveners Ned apphcalimns no mlervene m me 05 and |o ssl asme nne ex pane omers There are [we sens 04 proposed Inlerverners. The men pmpased nnnervener re me Annorney Gernera1‘s Chambers nus"; 7 The second se| oi pronoseo mnerveners cumunse al nour rnnemenens 1“lrnlIrVIrnon”) They are me nrusnees 0! me lands (3) me n" and 2» Imsrverners were apponr-nao on 12 3 mm by: Panang mgr. Coun oroer ournneo by no An snrno J. no; nn. 3" am 4" nmwenen were apnmved byme AG no he eopormeo as me trustees Mme lands. we e Vellerlmm the AG aenea n5 : znnor Ln) nne an en: aw Imerveneri were appomlad ailhslmneas ems nernns by 2. Pernaml man courn onoer mauled by Wong Teen Meng 4 an 1 5 mm and nor on il 13 s 2923, me nu ma 2m lnlelveners were snnnn me veunslsved owners on me norms, nn menrcanacn|y esme Kmslees Mme sero nrusn 3 Annogenher, nrnere were six eppnncennons belote me Namely- la) m(h21“OS an e Mme ovappnneauonoaceo a a 2023 moo by nnennnervenm lar leave no Intervene eno no set asroe me 1“ ex pane uIder1Enc{usme an on s ruonroo on appVII:a\uzn dated eazaza met! by Ihe AG ver leave no Nerve»: arm to sen nsnde IIne1“ex pane mer nznenosuno 9)‘ 5 srn G5<xmxxuv>nyaanL7xxm0w «we. s.n.r navnhnrwm be mad on may r... nnnnnr-r mm: dnuamnl VI murna WM 111.7 a nmme cf appH::al\on daled 29 9 202: filed by me Anmrcarrrs (M mspnsal on a pmm at 1am umar OIusv14A no the Rules cl Conn 21:12 V1: a ws the AG (Enc\o5uve 191‘ (M a Helms av aapmurorr daled 2992n2a rm by we Apvhums dm aapom on a palm waw under oraarm MINI Rulesaicmm 2012 ms n yrs Il1e\Merveners(Erw1usum 217, (hi m the 2'4 us 1.; n mute olapplmsmn dam: 5.v zmvm um. Imurvenersimleava lo Intervene and m sm awe ma 2~< ax pane arder 1Enak1sMm :51, and 11.; a mhcu L11 applscamn dated 29.9 202: Wed by ma Apn|1canI: war «arm.» on a mum av law undav Drdav HA 471015 mm M Count 2912 (EnrJnsure1Bt 9. On 27.11.2023, Igave leave |o Ihe pmposed mtervenets (0 mlervene in me as Furlher, 1 sel aside lhe ex parle orders, I am dismissed ma Order 14» appnmamrrs men by the Appnrcarrrs Here are me gruunds 0! my d2c151on. Background lam: The 1971 05 10. 1n 1971, the grand uncle ov me 1-‘ and 2"-1 Aaplicams, together wrm elhsrlamnly members, made an apphcalmn to the Penang High Court via Origmallng Summons No. 357 011971 (-1911 05“; 11 The 1971 OS soughllorlhefollowmg reliefs. -111 mu lhn um: and herednamams new kmwn as >1a1a1rrg 491, 492‘ 292, 293 and 1615) mm Subdlmvon 1‘ Nnnh Ea:|D|s|m:1 Penang vnum ave held upon 1nenms1rcraa1.¢ undern am am 3 u m dnland In vomr pm um. mmuary unit of think many Knh an a (21 A1|emaIlve|y,maH7\e sane W515 be dlclimd 1a have vanes and ma: Ina saro Vnnds be arm ar-u ma pruum dwldsd among Ihe resnduary Vagalen 1.1 111. Dmnomonl sn1au|1n\bew1I\ am: am Cheah Lem Kean doceabsd ' 12 On 2 9 1962, the Fenang High Conn wsmissed the 1971 OS. Vn his grounds oljudgmenl dated 20 5.1952. Muslapha bin Hussain J hek! met me INS! created over me ‘Ends are manlabls lrusl and the princlple of cy- pres apphes There was no appeal agams| are rare decrsrorr ol Muslapha Hussam J 5 sm ssmmw1.,.a.uxxrr1o,, “Nana s.r.1...rr.rw111r.. .r... m mm r... nrighuuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum M1 Dis 2015 sun 1: Maxi, in 20:5, the 1“ Applicant niea a civil s n the Penang High coun via sun na. 21-NCVC-4-01/2015 (-2015 um ). Tne 2015 sun was filed by me 1' Appiiaani on oanaii oi riiinseii and ine omei beneiicianes of me asxaia anne deceased. 14 me 2015 suit spugrii ipi ma following ialieis '(a) a uaciaiaiion inai an subssqunnl sciians and I or noun pruceodings and] DV iuaginam ma amen made mnlrnry In H s Ong'salderdn|ed 29 March iaaa iwniai cnmnnsed lhe aVnlemen|iDnefl OMEIS aaiaa 9 Jana-Ely mi. 2 sevxainpei isez i2 Sememheffllfli. 16.JariuaN zone and 1 May min pe aeoiaiaa nail and vumi (bi niai ins axacullan 0| im oiav dalsd 7 May zrm mm by Jushcl Wang Yam Meng as sliynd pending me aispasai nuns urexenl autumn in max in iiuams cl Linm Head Ton: CNX Sena Thuani Amariah Kehallkan I\Wem' apppiniaa vine any sapsaqiiam pmsis bu miiimn: 15 The cause oi aciion oi me 1“ Apphcanl in me 2015 suit was based on his conceniion inai iris lands beiong lo his privaie iamily irusi, After a lull vial, ins Psnang Hign Com dismissed me 2015 suit on 22.3 2019. Ahmad snamir hm Moria saueii J awarded coats oi RMi5u,uoo in the iniamaneis. And cas|s nl RM5D,000 io ina AG. who had been sued as the em dalendanl in ma 2:315 sun 16. In his grounds or judgment dated was 2019 Ahmad snaniii J ruled against ine 1“ Apphcaril on me following gwund iai the «'4 Aapiiaanrs Sim In aiaini ma iams, an the basis inai may ais unasi a pnvi|e iamiiyinm, is band by ms judlcaia and Iiiua asio;-psi, and mi ins mm cnuisa undu in. llvdenlum aaiaa a 3194‘! V! a puaiia cnaiiiahie inisi. ma rial a niwaie Vamily imsi The ggfiai 159 17 The 1"App|icanI appealed in ma Cuurh11Appea| againsuna decislfln pi Ahmad snanni J vide civii Appeai Nu P—G1|NCvC)|W|—159—D3/2019 ('AvnonI 1597). on 27 2.2022, me coun oi Apnea: dismissed the 1" Appiiaanrs appaai. The grounds oi iuugnieni ciine com in Appeal aaieu 3.3.2023 is iepaiiaa as David Chsah sang cnya (bung/Hg xnis acnon for N G5nfl£xLlVkyaEnL7XXm0fi “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be UIQG a may i... nflmruflly MIMI dnuuviml Vfl nFiuNfl Wm! and on behalf or himself and the Derleficlar/es of the estate 0! cheah Leong Keail, deceased) y Sn Mrau song 5 Or: and other appeals [2023] 3 MLJ 726 la The court at Appeal dtsmlssed the 1" Apptlcahts dam to the lands on the ground that hts clalm is barred by res ttmtcala and estoppel. Aggneved wlth the deelstoh at the Courl et Appeal‘ the 1- Appllcaht filed an applloatlen tor leave to appeal to the Federal court via clvil applreatlen Nu 0B(f)—74-U3/2023(P) oh 24.3.2023 The 1“ Applleaht later wtthdrew the leave appllcallon by filing a hettce ol disoorlllrluance dated 25 4 zuza tn the Federal court. 19 The soltoltprs vepresentlng the Applteahts lh the os hereth, re Messrs lsmatt Khoo A Ass/scales‘ were acllhg ter the 1" Applicant tn the zuts suit Ur||l| the trrteryehers ehtatned a court order to remove Messrs tamatt Khoo A Assoclate and we partner, Mr John Khoo Boo Lat, lrorn repreeehttng the 1'' Applteaht The reason was due to epnlllct at thterest The present os 2c The 1-‘ Appllcant, tclgelther wtth the other two Appllcahts, ttled the 1-l 05 oh so 5 2oz: and the 2“ as on 22.5.2023. both on ah ex pane hasls. lh the 05, they laid clalm tn the lands that were the suhtect matter of the earlrer two suits Namely up the 1971 os betore Muetaphe Hussalh J. and (ll) the 2015 sult before Ahmad shartru and the Appeal 159 med by the 1“ Appllcanl. The Appttcants proceeded to ahlatn the all pane orders wttheut the lthewledge ot the AG and the lnlarveners 21. Here are my reasons Ior allowing the prupnscd imerveners to intervene in the es and tor aettthg astde the ex parte orders Ovggr 15 rule 6 2 (I2) ot the Rules at court 2ot2 22 UrlderOvdev15 rule 6(2j(b) of the Rules ot ceurt 2012, the court may at ahy stage at the pmoeedlngs order that the proposed tntervehers be added as panles This IS to ensure that the matter ts ellectuatty and ootnpls|ely adludlcaled upoh And tor the issue related to the rellet alarmed by the appttcahts to be justly and eenyentently tletermtned 23. I am eattahed that the proposed lhtenreners have a direct legal rhrerest In the matter th the ease ol the AG, he ls the oustpdiah pl publlc charllabls |rusI under seetloh 9 ot the Government PvuneedltlgsAc1 1955 In the case of the tntervehere, they were the reglstered owners and a arrt Gsmflxuvltyaayflxxnloy “Nair a.rt.l In-rlhnrwlll e. u... M van; r... erthr.ll.y Mlhln dun-vlnhl y.. nFluNG mar (mslees of ms wands. -mm they were remaoed by me Apphcams pursuant to me ex pane orders. 24 The Applicants mad the OS (or declaralxons aflectmg the Wands and ula‘ ’ng the ‘ands, but wimuul naming the proposed mlerveners as S pany. And pwceeded Io uhlzm me ex pane uvders I cunssder ms to be an abuse 0! the pmcess ol OOLII1 Hence. I] \s applopriale (D aflow the pmposed InlsNeners' appncauon to Intervene. Abuse otcmm Qmoess by me Applicants 25 The Federa\ Courl m Mansmn Pmpemes Sdn Bhd v Sham Chm Yen L ors [2021] 1 MLJ 527 at 542 — 543 relleraled lhe general pnncwmss an ex pane apphcalmns as Inflows‘ “[35] A: a generanme, no om: would be mac tn mu prujudiu on pmy unless ne rm 2». oppommify a/wag hurdm as/um However ex pans apphcatrons an rvaagmsed as runes:-my and annmonexs m oenzm cwcumxtanccs As ahservedby /mac: ./m Thomas A Edison Lm 1/Bu/Ioc)<(1912) 15 CLRd7§atp Aav Them rs z pmmarypvenpl gowrrwlg me animlmstvalrun o(1usm=e,LhalrIa man rs lo be condvmnodurmeurfl, and mum, is . ganuml mic, rm ommnoum on mm in an. pm/mime ols pafly unless he has me oaporlunrly oraemg huud m drlvnnu em muances occur where/uslfcs could not be done amass me sumac! mans! of the sur! wen preserved‘ and, 1/ ma! rs m danyar cl deurutllon by one parry, 0! yr mmsdrabm or 5000115 Gamay: D5 mlmmenl, me other may com to Illa Calm and ask rs: us vnlarpcsmon awn m the Ibsvnca L:/Ins apponam, on am gonna mm may would Wows araalsr Iruushu man Instant actran Eutwhen he dun: :5 and!/1e Caunls zsked tn dixruylrd um um: nqulnmml or mm»; m olnor side, the pafly mavlng lncws . most semws responsibility - 25. From me prewous suns med by me «~ Apphcanl and me mvulvemsnt uflhe sohcrlors for me Apphcams m the prevmus suns, |hey are iullyaware mat may are seekmg a snrmlar relief as (haw forebears In me 1971 es and me 2015 suI| In hum Ihase previnus smls, Ihe Applxcanls and (hex! lorebear did not succeed to obtain an uvderdedaring me wanes to be men !am1Iy’s pnvale (rust land The 1“ Apphcanfs Appea\ 159 agamst the Hwgh Court asmsmn m me 2015 sum was dismissed by me Court at Appeal on me ground M res pmucaxa Z7 Howe»/ev, the Ap l‘r.an|s persxsl byfihng the OS. Bul this mus. wnhoul naming the proposed imervenels as a parly \ regard that as an abuse 07 the com‘: ex pane pvccess Whaleverlhewr m\evpr2|aIIun ‘s oonoermng 9 sm Gsannxuwyaaguxxnwog «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnumml VI mum pom! me grmmds or mgrnenl cl |he Courl 0! Appeal in me Appeal «as, me os should never nave peen filed on err ex pane basls 2a The Appllcants should rlal have excluded lhe proposed inlerveners lrorn me 05 me proposed lnlerveners are clearly lrrleresled pames All along, they have bee ' cllved ln lhe dlspule over the lands ln real, as reeenfly as 3.3.2023, when lnegreurms nfludgmenlallhe counomppeal In the Appeal 159 was dellvenad 29. The 1“ Apphcam had me ppppnunily la challenge me deuslon ol me calm ol Appeal lrral was rendered in me Appear 159. wmcrr had amrnrea me Hlgh cpurveaeelalon ln ulsrrriss ng rns olarm Io remuve |he lnlerveners as the |ms|ees ol the lands However, me 1“ Appllcanl uplad |o wllrraraw ms leave applleallon al lrre Federal calm. As such, we ruling of me zuls sun as well as me rullng 04 me Appeal 159 slands so. In me us and melr aifldavll In suppprl, lne Appllcanls selenwely nrgnlrgnleu certain paragraphs nflhe grounds 01 luagrnenl ol |he Cuurl of Appeal In lrre Appeal 159 And (hereby clalmed that [here Is a “declaraInn' made by the Cum 0' Appeal in Ihelrlavcur 31 Thls appears al pamgraph 9 or me Applrcanls amuanl ln suppnn amnneu on as 5.202: (Enclosure 2), ‘ rr reads -9; lzerrmrrprr ~ Pemnhorl Dermal urlluk mslaksarlakarl lminih nevsendlnan Llam Need Tana Chm Sang Thuarl msvlglkuh Iupuluun lhhkanuh luyusn lomuln pongllyllhaun hshlwi Amnnnh Llnm Hmd -renp cnar serv; man Ialah amanail persenplnarr- 32 However, the sealed order 0f the Conn oi Appeal in me Appeal 159 are rlol corllaln any suerr ‘dec|aralIon". The sealed order ol the Conn of Appeal VI me Appeal 159 oonlalnsd only me lnllowlng lerrns ‘(a7 Rayuan Pslayu eaalan ar Ialak, (la) Km sebarlyak RMJILDUD no sacara global urlluk klllgi ~\lgn xeslwzzm 596—l)3/2019, w.u2lNcvc)lA;.me.n4/zore. l=—m WCVCNWH ss- aalzmm, dl bayar kepafln nespanaen laerlarna semngga Kellnla lmakluk Kepad: bzyav-In nlnkalur flan (C) Kns sebnnyakRM10,0D0 noel bzyarkapad: Ruponden Keenan.- 33. The Applreanls hrgnlrgmed cenaln pans at me gmunds cl luagrrrenl pl me coun pl Appeal In paragrapns [so] — [55] Hauever, lne App ms mu rm hlghhghl lnal ulllrnalely, me 1-‘ Appllcanrs Appeal 159 was 10 sr~ G5mKxLNkyaEyL7XXmOg “Nair s.n.l mmhnrwm rs. LAIQ4 m mm r... nnglrrnuly mum: dnuuvlnnl vu nFluNG pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-24NCvC-631-05/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) DAVID CHEAH SENG CHYE 2. ) Michael Cheah Seng Jin 3. ) Dr. Khaw Wooi Soon PENCELAH 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) TAN SIEW JOO 3. ) SO MIAU SONG 4. ) LEE WALLY 5. ) TAN CHIN HERNG

Leave to intervene and to set aside ex parte orders – Whether abuse of court process – Whether breach of natural justice and fundamental right to be heard – Whether claim is barred by res judicata and estoppel – Whether finding of the Court of Appeal on private trust is obiter dicta.

13/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f7099d1b-54ac-4c56-9a06-02fb5d7d083a&Inline=true

13/12/2023 15:42:51 PA-24NCvC-631-05/2023 Kand. 81 S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N G50J96xUVkyaBgL7XX0IOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal u—2mcvc—s31—o5/2023 Kand. E1 12/12,2122: 1342 3; In the High Com 0! Malaya in Penzng 1n the State ov Penang, Malaysm Ong atlng summons Na FA 24NCvC—631 5/2023 Da\an1 pevkara Amanah Persendman L1am Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan lndenture Cheah Leong Kean berlankh 5.3.1941 Dan ua1am coma: Amanah Psrsendxrian Mam Hood Yong Char Sang Thuan Cheah Lenng Kean beflankh 25.11.1933 Dan Da1am Alssan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan benankh 3.3.2023 man Yang Am HMR Abdm Kanm. HMR s Nanma Balan den HMR Lvm Chang Fang Dan Dalam Ir\|Br aha FEIBVIQQEH 56, $0 — $5 Nasan Penghakvnan Mahkamsh Rayuan Mendeklarasikan dan I alau Fmdmg av Facts Liam Hood Tong Chm Seng man umam Vndenlure benankh 331941 dan Coma! bertankh 26.11.1933 Cheah Leong Keah ialah Amanah Persendman Dan Dalam perkara berkenaan Harlanah Lot 491 da1am Geran No. 20345. Lo(492 dalsm Gsran No. 20349, 1.01292 dalam Geran 5935 dan Lot 96:: aa1am ssran No. 20273 kesemua d1 Seksyen 1, Banner Georgelmm Daerah ‘nmur Laul. Pulau Pmang Dan Da1am psrkara Pevlarmkan Pemegang Bam un|uk Amanah Persen man Mam Hnad Tang Chor sang Thuan Dan Dalam nerkara mer aha s A5, A3, 59 Akla Pemegang Amanah 1950 m G5omsxWkyaanL7xxn10w “Nana s.n.1...1a.m111... 3.... w my 1... nrW\ruH|:I mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum M1 Dan Da\am perkara - pefkar-a dalam pevunlukkan da\am Kanun Tanah Negara Dan Dalam perkava Kasdah 92 mlsr aha Kaedah 94 dan Kaedah 5 mleraha Penman A Kaedah — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 (Rules ov com 2012) Between 1 David Cheah Sang Chye 2 Miv:hae\ Cheah Sang Jvn 3 Dr Khaw Wnui Soon .. Applcams And Psguam Negara Mmaysxa Pmposea lnlervenerl Respondent And 1 Tan siew Jan 2 50 Man Song 3 Lee Wally 4 Tan Chm Hemg [Pemegang . pemegang Amanah Awam mam Hood Tong Chor Seng Thuan) Proposed lntervsnsrsl Respondents Heard uogen-er wi\h \n ma Hwgh Court 0! Maxaya m Penang In me S(a|s 01 Penang Malaysia Ongmg ng Summons N F’ cm 47 6/2023 Dalam Penman Deklavasx Mahkamah Tmggl Pmau Plnang benarikh sezoza Mendeklarasxkan Amanah Lxam Hood Tong Char Seng Thuan adalah sa|u Amanah Persendlnan (Fnvals Trust) 2 sm G5<xmsxuwyaayL7xxmog mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! dlsrnlssed Based on me ground thal me 1-‘ Appllcanrs clslm. lnal ma lands are under ms larnlllrs pnvale lrusl, IS barred by res judrcara. 34. ll would have been meal penrnenl lpr lne Appllcarrls lp rnglrllgm paragraprrs [es] — [57] of ma grounds pl ludgrnanl pl lrre courl pl Appeal. wnlan reads 156] Thu), w. agms wl|h ma lnlalvm1a(Iun|hn|wns advnnced by me Awellarll more US However, we Agpul: mm by msorr A: sum: In puaprapvr 55 almve Cuncluslorl [571 M lrra result. In: Appvllx In Imus-li wllh ears as Plarnly‘ lne cpun dl Appeal neld mat the 1“ Applrcanrs appeal did not succeed ldr lrre reason as slated in paragraph [56] pl me grounds ol ludgrnem Trral has relererrpe no me lam man we Court pl Appeal nad amrrned lne llnding ol the dean below regarding res ]udlca|a. And an oral ground, had dlsmrssed lrle 1" Aonlrcanfs anneal. as Al paragraph [56] 04 mar gmunds pl ludgmeru. me cpun or Appeal s|a|ed ‘[55] Om rmlrrrmrprr ad mare. Ahmld Shlhviv bin S.II|Ih'x llrralrrg on In judlcall is ldlqulln ur dilmln .III rm mm xpmnls or Davld crlearl serrp Chye peldre us we as 2 and os 3 c.lmle| be srrsralned wrrerr 5Ul| l lalle Yhnlagn slrlclly rrrrrreeessary hm ldr oomp|e|eness lrr me sake er pub|lcIrl|aIu51‘ we wlll deal wnrl me pallles‘ rlval subslannvs comsmluns an mralrrar me Lands are sublsdsd lo a publlc chanlable mm orvlIva|e1Ns|' Breach ol Natural Jus e and lne F nggmgnlal Rlglrl In be Heard 37. Trra Federal court ln Dr Lourdes Dave Raj a/l Culuz Dulai Ra] V Dr Mrllon Llml slaw Wall & Andr [2020] 5 MLJ 135 relleraled lne well — esrapllsrrad legal pnrlclpls lnal an order made agarnsl a pany lrr breach or ms mrrdarnarrlal rlgnl |a pe rreard ls a breacrr dl namral lusllce wlrlclr renders the order a rrulmy and llaple rp be sel aslde 3:. The Federal Courl sald lal page 198‘ mm -1231:» me firs! quesllorl prlaw, or Lauroes relred an III: on: pmdrrrarrpy an Thamba xaurrdan 5 Am)! v D s c Bank and 5 Ana! [lass] r MLJ an (:5; lMmlarlL1y) rd mm IN DOM! la mcogmu mar ll ls a branch drrralrrral /«slim no: lo accord or Lwmls ms rrgm in be rrrard Murlfandy rs BMMOUIY lor me well - srltlud pnrlclpls prraw mar .rr err4.r mud! ngnfnsl a party Irl bnacn ofllls r 1 SN G5(llKxLlVkyaEnL7XXDlDy “Nana Smnl mrrlhnrwlll .. .r.... M M», r... nflglrullly mlhln dnuurlml VI nFluNQ pmul furldlmurlln right tn [:0 ud is bnncll ornarur-llusuee ll nndort in- me: . rrulhry Ind is tllbll re ea sat asm I351 The semi-id respenaenla eeuneelsuornmee mlmue was no Dfljudfoe to or Lourdes nor being given notice or the nmial review proceed/W5 and/nor ma eppenuniry ta bl naere ar lhe same‘ on ma beer mar Dr Loamas was new were me Pmtlrmrlary lnaulw cernrnlrree am: the we, and me would alm- pmusadlrlgs before me we was below me Nlyli courr arid Court‘ a(Apuoa/ m we mdlnral ravrew proceeding: we rem: rm aorllurllran as me pnnmplea oi nzmrauustica er. not sensm by reason L1lDr Lourdes having me eaponurnry lo dsland hmlsullill me domastlc Inqlmy praoeemngr me new to M rmrre on ma plrflnullr Incl: or rm Insunt appeal, exrerma to all new of me pmcxlding: wmen alveerea mm, am: lnrs irwuaes tllnudlclatprmeedngs me Cour! omppeai wilri mspscl orvsdiri rialconsldsmlg Mn miscarriage ornrerne surrerea by D! Loumcs man mmpaseu a lmdmg elgurlr on him annraemclea ms llgnl re Do new in ms eeranea lo nnly numng in a plea or rrutrgelien more me we - 39 Having tailed to obtain the renal he craved in me 2015 suit and me Appeal 159, the 1“ Applicant elected to relriigeie the same issue via me as herein lain on an ex pane basis that tailed to respeu the pmposed inierveners right to he heard. 40. ii is my linumg mar the ex pane arders eereinea by me An were made in breach ol me pmpusad interveners' tundamentai right to be neere. such breach or naturai iuslice, in my opinion, renrlers me ex pane oraere null and void‘ and liable to be set aside. M. The lnlervenere were me regisrerea owners and trustees atthe lands, Imtii mey were replaced by the Apelieerris pursuant ie me ex pane orders. The Applicants are tuily aware that the iritervellers were me registered uwners and trustees ol the lanes Morecver. the 1“ Applicant had attempted in ciaim the lanes in the 2015 sun and in the Appeal 159, but are not suuzed. 42. The solicitors tor the Applicants, Messrs Ismail Khon & Associates and its partner Mr John Khou Eco Lai, were at one point representing the 1" Applicant In the 2015 suit The knowledge ot the sellcitals Is imputed en the 2" and 3~= Applicants In one lriattel 43 As the registered owners and trustees of the lands at the material time, the inlarveners had a direct isgal Interest in the lands Thus‘ the ex pane eraers nblained by the Applicants had enemy ellecreu me illtevesl 07 the tnterveners By not naming the intervenels as H pany and proceeding ex pane, the Appllnants had denied nerurel justice to the :2 sm Gsmnxuveyaayuxxniog «en. s.n.i nuvihnrwttt r. u... M mm the nltgtlrnttly MIMI dnuminlrl VII .nuue pnlui lrllerveners. In me case ol the AG, he has been prevenled lrorn carrylrlg OIJI nle duiy as lrle cuslodlan cl me said lrllsl. In lrle Dfemlsesl me preposed lnlsrveners‘ appllcallorl lo lrllerverle and lo eel aslde lrle ex pane orders oplalrled by the Appllcarlls ought Ia be allowed. 44 The Federal cdllrl ln Manelpn Propermsllpra) rllled lrlal an ex pane ordercarl always be se| aslde. And when an order was oulalned ex pane, lne nnnelple ol lllrlclus omclo does not avbly Trle Federal colln sald (at page 543 - 544): ‘[42] me EOIIII lnok mle Mme Drelmlefll Dmclloe amoml DVSc1l(x1lIers|D Wucaed ll. an ex pane raenlon In rllaxlrv; aw|lca1lorlslorTDDiItrado dascllpfrorl order) urlaev 5 la cl lle rm [Travis Dasmptrorv Ac! 2M1] ll war «ulna lrlel male was Reliving wlellg or lllagal ll. such a WII:1lD!.!Im)S ln. aflacwd perm Velillll Ihe rlght bu applyw $€|a$IdB an ex pine mo lal para: [59] a [£2]; All ax Dam oldur un ml-ys be sel Islde Ina . noun Is not vllmllr ewlcle lo revlew a ma omallled ex pane anrlollurr Delleded nle nurll oval. enecled person lo army to rel erlde an ax pm me lr a llgrll wrllcrl exlsll averand abovelhs elrlerclull l1msdI€$ aulleul. In nlrll ml Is llxllelly wrlal ln. apptllams dld ln lnla can In me Hlgrl COM?‘ belawl lfley nnplled In lrllervelle nnd la 59.1 nslde rrle ex pane mo- Tne Appllcarll 05 la. barred by Ree Jlldlcala and Eeloppel 45. ln me 2n15 Skill‘ «re 1" Appllcarll represented the henellclanes M the esla|e enrle deceased Tne deceased rlad crealed me sald lmsl aver me lands lrlal formed ole bone uloorllenllon unne zms sllll ln lrle 2015 sull, me 1" Aopllcanl clelmed lhal the sald Irusl ls a pllvale lanlily lfusl, and rlel a publlc crlarllable lrllsl. 46. me calm 01 Appeal rlad dllly eerlsldered lne basls oi |he 1“ Appllcanrs clai ms Appeal 159 Trlls ls rellecled al paragraprl [27] pl lne grdllrlds dl llldgnlerll dune colln cl Appeal, wnlen reads. 1271 lrl sull 1, Davld crleul seng crly. mlllallded |hl| ln. lllllll vlfltellby me Tmlilnr appelrlled nle lrllee sans as llllsleee Io hullfl lne Pagnfla runled ‘LL-Em Hand Tlng Cmr seng rnllerr rwnlerl ln cnlrleee lranslallarl lneml anfiesllal wolshlfl hall or allarl allprled wlln crllnese cllllllre and ellslarll as lesllned by me experlwrllless. Dr Ian AI Eaey ls al Dflvak mm nllslrlomed Dytlva Taslatar havlrlw clearly observed lrle rllles adalrlsl pevvalllllllls lrl respecl ul lrle |Vu£\ our lrlll nlllldlng or he Pagoda and plwlslarl ellllllds ll; ulllld ll ~ 47 In eppoelng lrle 2015 Suil, me pmposed lnlerveners asserl max me said lrllsl crealed over me lands ls a pubhc charilable lrllsl And lhal me l 3 SN G5nfl£xUVkyaEnL7XXnl0fi “Nair Smll nurlhnrwlll be UIQG In may l... nflfllnnllly ml. glam. Vfl .rllllla Wm! 1-‘ Appttcartrs 2015 sutt, ctatnung tnet the lands ts under a pnvale tarntty lrusl. ts barved by res judtcata ana esmvner. 4a. This is rettectea at paragraphs [31] and 133] at the grounds at tuagnteht ot the court at Appeat, which reads. “tau tn oppostttart sa Klau Son‘ rat chang, ran Srevntoo, tee watty and Tan chtrt Hemg natlsnlvely wttnI:r- pantenaaa that the tnaertture ptatr-ry evtnoed a publlc ch ’ blnnnlhecattse Mme presence attha cvuclalwolds -utwrr trust to attuw attpersprrs who progsss ms suuahrsr rnlrgron In warshrp arm parrarrrr ralrgmua cammorvss ur mniurmtry wrtn trr. t9tmdIn:1 mlfgmn at the sat: pagoda" In the trtnartture [33| tt u atsp arnpnasrsea tnatay vtnue ouurttcs Musuphs rt ssltnsdecman matte an 2- septentaer 1962 pursuaru ta ntgh Cnurl at F. -lug Ongtnalmg Summons Na. 357 cl 1971‘ the iubpem rnatterarra tenets saughl tn the sun are barnd by us tuntcata srta ulnppll “ 49 The Conn pt Appeal rutaa that the I" Appttt:aht's 2015 stttt, on aenatr at the beneflciartes at tne estate at the deceased. was barred by res tuutcata. This appears at paragraphs [54] ana [55] ot the grounds of tudgrrtent at the Courl of Appeat, whtch reads‘ 1541 cpnseauernty, we nrta that there ts rte mluilnnlhm by Justin Ahnua Shlrlvlain Sallnh who hlld that suttt ts haw-d by us lndlcala try resuarr cl Jusnca Mttsuphs Hnssatlfs aeotstort auteu 2 saptarrtasr tan: In trns resped we turther find and note that Jumcn rttturtspna Husssrns dectstnn tnat I5 evtdewed by ms ground: at judgmlnl dllad 2a Attgus| tsaz terrtatns vatta norwtthstanotup nu kn praar ms never drawn up by etrher at me pamu Dumtam to o :2 r to at me Rutes at the mph CattrI198I1.AI are as we are mncamedt me aeerstan ol Jusllcs Mustapha Huiutn has Devi ttnmmnkably rnatte and that s attrhar matters here [set our afllrmallon 51 Jun’ Alumna Sh tutr hln sattews llnfllnq on us tuatuta II afluqulh In dlxmlsl an Inn mu Ippuli or new chaan seru; Chyn aetare us the os 2 and os 3 cannot be wslalnsd when Sml I tarts maugh slnnlly urmeoessary put tor porrtptatsrrasr tn the take at pttbltc uttetest. we wttt aaat wtlh Ins pames‘ rtust auastarrtrve mnlemiorts an whether the Lands are suotactau ta a pupttc ehsrrtaate Imsl at nnvale trust " so The present 05 Mad by the Appttcahts is the third attempt by the beneltciianes at the estate at‘ the rtepeaaea Ia tay ctatrh lo the lands Based on Ihe ecnlenlton that lhe Wands are (hetr IEVIIIIYS pnvale INS1 lands ll ts my findvng that the as hevetn is srrrtitarty barred by res judtcala and 8510999‘. IA SIN G5mHxL1vhyaEyL7xxmDy «war. s.r.t mmhnrwm r. u... m van; t... nngthnuly sun. dnuuvtnnl VII .nurte amt 51 Tne cuun nas power under section 11 av lne Schedule pv me Couns ovaudicalure Ac11964|u disnriss1ne Applicants‘ clarrn on me ground vnel lne dispule over me lands is res ludlcala pevween them and ine proposed Inlerveners. The said provision reads 111 Resludlcala Puwsv 1o dlimlu or may prlvusdlrvgs wnsrp me rnsner in qusvstlnn is res ludlcnla bulwurl vne |>iVlI51,or men by mason p1 rnulucrplrcre, pv pmceedlngs in any aeurrs ine pmceedlngs dugnr nm lo be mminued 52. on res judlcals, me Caurl ov Appeal nad reacned lne vollawlng conclusion at paragraphs [51] - [52] av their grounds at ludgmem: 1511 Aller due curlslderfillun, we are in me vlew lml special clmumslames which exclude rne upnlrcemn allesludlcaln or issue esropnel are dnly alllacted updn rne nlslnrlvv dernensuaung lne rnresnpld redurrevnenl ov nleqaiiw. Vick 0' lullsdldlon urnaua wnrsn has occaxloned in me onainal a:|larl Nonevnsim, ms piarnlriv may mil be denied lne oppollunny In oulsus me vmn udlurl N specpl cl-purnsranm dlnjlze lnsnr ll urnusrvurvne plllmflm dn sd PM in irlolhelwny. spuprsl pnaurnsvenpss flu mi Brent: 5 new ullngary warvanlmg rne nmsull M a vresn anion hm operere In deny lne DuIsm|almeV|esV1 serum norwrrnslanmnu lllewalflyv lack M iurlsnmnn or vraud nas been nrads mn ms is seen in cnss Pok cnoy lsuwa) wnere lne nesn anion premised on naud was sliuwea 1a procesd became n was vauna, on me veal: and snpunrsunm pv me use (ml 1| was urllus1 var lne plaln|M|hu1llI|o prulrv on in. lraud 1| perperrersd an lne mun [52] Based on rne veas never II is Dial?! 1r1a|Davld Chsah Sena cnye nsrlner pleaded IVIEQIIW1 lack av iunsmupn nor vraua la ruslrvy Hm lnsI1|u|lon uv sun 1 Na also norluedad virus is no case aulhonly 1ns1 public cnanuele uusl and /or private lNs| am a specrsl I:l|agnry Wham in. duclnna nl .es ludlcam puglrl nm vp nvmy * 53. Slrloa lne sumevn mafler av lne Applicanls presenl 03 and me 1-‘ Appllcanfs 2015 surl penarn to me same lands, and are based on lne sanre cause pv aciipnl vaeis, issues and relieis, I firm ma| lne App|lcanls' claim aver 1ne lands IS paned by res ludll:a|a The finding av lne Ccurl ov Aggeal on g ’ ale (ms ’s obiler male 54. Tne decision o1 me ceun ol Appeal in me Appeal 159 nae decided lna1 me 1-‘ Applicant’: claim [0 ins lands, on the argument lnel lne lands are under a pm/ate 1arnilylrus1end not a public cnarnanle lmsl. Is barred by res ludlcala Tnal is the ratio deciderldl oi the Courl av Appeal Tne 1“ Applrcanl cannol now seek any relievand claim me lands again, using the same argunvenl lnal lne lands are under a pnvale Iamlly lrusi 1 5 sm G5<xnnxuvnysanL7xxnl0i1 «mu. s.n.1 ...n.mn r. .1... e may r... uvnn.l-r mm. mmn VI srlulva v-mxl 55 eranleu lnal ma cam 91 Appeal men pmseeded lo pm 9 men Vlsws ocncemlng lns lnlarpralallpn of the lndsnlure. ln mus vagam, me caun pl Appeal agreed wllh lna argument advanced by me 1“ Applicam lnal lne sale lmal ls a prrvale lmsl 56 In thelr grounds of judgment, me com :2! Appaal sam: -{s»:1nu.s,wa ale ol ma vlaw mal lna -ma nature of lna lms| ln ouasuorl have will depend on me corlilruwon pl lna Cudul ma lndenmm opmsxlually rem aaalnsl ms backdrop nl cnmaaa cllllllm and suslmn see Hm Vlk cnal s Hay vaw Tang 5 Anal [1952] 2 Ml.) 221 so {am We have aavslully man daules 10[a)lnd lllmmalms coma: and clause llal — (cl av lne lmanvms and um nm the raslamrs dammam lmamnn V! la have me Pagoda bum as a amaulsl anaasual nall lanna Taslztzoru «amlly and aaspamama lp wnrshln ancsslms as uaslman by ms sole axpsll wllness Dr ran Alfiusy VII declphellng me name uamlalanly mm lauaanalapanlsausayvong (hall) cm sang tancsston Thuan lallan Llim Hand Yhnna Cher Sena man xlmlvg mgemer meanlx Buddhlsl anpaaual nall / allaroiworshlp [ell ln afldmun, the Teslainr navm anvmmaa nus ln-as sum ml nm me Exaculuvjln nnple-namnlswlsnss unuama lmenlurv nmnaalsnlwlln cnlnssa wnura nnd cuslflm on Dulldllvg ansawal wurshlp nall l BN3! »ma.a.n responsmlllly I5 vested only an nula llnenge mn lna same Teslzlors surname mesa are commonly done by weallhy cnlnase lamlllas ln cmna. Yarwnn And Malaysla aocuvdlng us Dr van wnomwa am sallsraa Ii an amply quslflied experl on lnls mmerbnsed on he! numculum unas [n21 Be Ina! as II may‘ we in nnmml (ha! lheve ls alsa lmsnllpn mlna Teslnml m pemlll all psnana who nmless lns Budflhlfl mlnglon lo wmmp and peflnml rsllglaus cualnanlas VII oonlanvllly wlln ms auaunm valiglun .n me pappaa We mwnver «nu ma: mls ls ma rsslamrs Iewlsnt Intvllmn xubamlnaled In n-a darI\4nBn| lnlzmlun ol pulualng an ancuual wurshlp nall / anal pamculany zw mm usmg lns word 'aIlvw‘ .n cllusu Mb) Mlhe lnslenme [ecu Cormanuemly am slnce lna Teslalnrr dominant Inlsnlmn IS to have lne Pagudn ml: as An ancaml wan-p nan /altar. wl find nu: ma mm which In: bean cnatcu for mu purpou um um conulllm a puhlhc chlrlubln lmanlpllowlng Slv Han Nu: m. V um Klm sang a. Ann! [1955] 22 MLJ142 male wnmon J nalu as fnllawx , wlm regalfl lo Ihe anoeslval npuss mwannlp l| I: clenr Ihrs was a snnna for lnmlly purpasas, and I do ml flunk l|l euenllal pm/ale nalma V5 uflsuad by the pmvmon my me dnvlbullon al alnls nr loud |a pool tvavnllvs DY la alher pool psrwns wtm mvgm came up Worship an ms house or Irv: In me vlninlty, Var I lsal ma pnmslan was oon|empl:4ed by ma same: pnmnly as aflordmg «manual asslslance to an adlvlly 01 gm mm W cnnnecuorl mm lna ancsslval house and ml as an aulxmnce cl . pananal namra lp ma allmmpn 15 sm Gsamxxuvnyaapuxxnlug “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. l... M mm .. anan.u.y mm: dnuuvlnnl VI arlum puns! pl ms oondmorl pl me your suns rlslghbeulmud ar av nnpmnsnse rlrnsrsnls passlng lnrpugn n lvlnn vltw n wind nel only ll lnsrs an absence pl e ssnsrsl snsnlslsls lnlzmmn ln rsspssl nlmls lnlsl. hm n my pprrnen II has rlal lnsl mulls e4emen| wrnsn n rehglaus Vusl charkable In law rnllsl possess tsllnrollrv opalsa. 06 [1949] AC 426‘ [msl 1 AH an my I have rsasrrea me corlclusmns, aeponlmly lrlal ms mm In rvsaacl 0' ">9 WWI. Waugh Wssesslrlu no general cnarnaple -nlenllen, ls s walla cnsnuols must but lr-al lns mm -n vewed or ms anoewzl hou pl wprsrnp canrm| es rspsnlsu es snanmals, 2IHdl!|Haliful1,lV|A‘|i7fl ms lampmsrs addafl [Ml Mnleaver ln Re Nun. asseassa llsssl MLJ as, ll was held lnal In be a chamy ln law, me lrusl rnnsl be eslnbllshed lor purposes wrnsn ave sxclnswsly cnamaple. see also Nal sang Nlarly v rrrs Tnmasi mlns Pvasblflhrlan cnursn ln srnqspcvs Reqlllered A ols [was] 3 MLJ 311 we Ivvlaln unmrwllwed lrnn me 1. nor had lnlanded ls aslapllsn a llusl whlch was In be exclusively snssnnsls I351 ln me nremlses, we one and held lrlal lnere ls no Qensml charllama lnlernnn ny |he rsslanpr |n mvesl lne Lands luv purposes m vehgleul chamy psr-srally rrrs Irunwllkhwu uutnfl bylhn Yuulo s amslnss . privlh (mil man Is lncapspla pl Cy-was upon hllure puns lrusl spnlrary tn mar as laund Ind nsla by Julllce Alnnns snsnnr znn Salleh win concurred wlln Justine Muslavha Hussaln” 57 The courl pl Appeal oplnea lnal me said Irusl is a prlvate lrusl Bu\ lhal eonnnenl was made ln pesslng. Hence. apller alcla. Tnsl llrrding was npl essenllal vol lne aesnnon or me calm ol Appeal ln lne Appesl 159 Nsvenneless, lne Ceurl ol Appeal maugnl ll dsslrahle lo provide llselr views, given me rwal conlenllcns ol me panies on (NS palm 53 lrl the own words omre Courl oi Anneal- -[551 Our almrrnallsn m Jnmloe Ahmad snannr bln sallens rlnalng an Iusludlcala Ii aasquals In msnnss all the was appeals ev Damd cnssn Sung Shy: were us In. cs 2 an as 3 ssnnpl be suslsrnss when sun I lsrls rnellqn nticlly ululu:-Illly hullnv cnmplmmvlsl in lns sake el puhllc nneresl we wlll flul wllh um a mu‘ flnl inhslnnllw cnnumlons on wrmhnr 0 Lands as suns-em: Ia - vuhllc I:hu(uNI lmsl or pnms lmst’ 59, ll ls nlsln mat me coun cl Appeal had smnneu Ihe llndlng ollne courl below regardlng res lualcale The Court or Appeal lnerelore dismissed lhe 1" Appllsanrs Appeal 159 on me ground 0! res judlcala. Tha| IS me rsllo decldendi so The Courl v1 Appeal expllcnly slaled that ll IS unnecessary to deal wlln me rrvsl canlenllor-s ol whelher the lands are sublecl lo a nu 17 srn Gsamxxuvhyaanuxxnlvv “Nair s.nn nuvlhnrwm es UIQG e may r... snnn.nl mm: dnuuvlml Vfl srlum pensl eharltable trust cl! a private iainily trust Albeit that the court oi Appeal proceeded to do so, ior cempletenesa in the sake oi public interest 61 Given that the iinding oi a private ttust is not essential to the decision oi the Court oi Appeal in the Appeal 159, the saine rriust pe regarded as opiter dicta. Accordingly, it does not have oinding weight. otherwise. tithe hnding that the said tmat is a private trust was the ratio decidendi. the 1' Applicant's Appeal 159 would have been alluwed Obviously that was not the outcome oi the Appeal t59. 62. In an earlier pan oi their grounds pi iudgntent, the coun oi Appeal had teocg ed that the cure issue peicte them is the issue oi res iudi ta. And that tnetv decision on the said issue will determine whether it s necessary ior them to decide on the remaining findings with regard to the nature and consequence oithe s trust 53. Paragraph [431 oi the grounds oi ludgineni oi the Court oi Appeal reads ‘[43] we have therelaie in the exerase oipurappetiate iiirietiaii reviewed tustice Ahiiiad snahiir pin sallahs ground at iudgiiiaht in the light at the contentuaiis rlnw advarioed more us it iserris me at Inn we iiiust iiist detdnriiiia tho iliidtnp en ru iudtcat. as this will :1 rate whether it raiiiaiiia lllcilllvy thmaitar to daiaiiiitiia IM rsriiatiitiip tiiidliigi an the IIIIMM and coiiaaguiiiess oittia Imst as tiedueathed trvthstestatpr- 64 Aiter considenno the issue of res iudieatar the court oi Appeal amrnied the iindtng oi the court tielow un ies iudicala. Arid stated in no uncenain terms that such aiiirrnation is adeqtia|e lo dismiss the appeal oi the 1“ Applicant in the Appeal 159. it iotlows that it was not necessary ior the cpun di Appeal to decide an the nature and consequence oi the said trust 65. To sum up, the ‘by the way‘ opinion ol the Court at Appeal, I e. that the said trust is a private tmst as not essenual to their decision in the Appeal 159. The ratio decidendi is the amtrnation oi res ludicala On the ground at res iudicata. the 1" Applicants Appeal 159 was dismissed 36 In the preirllses,|ne1“ Applicant and the ulnar Applicants cannot be permitted in telitigate the same claim over the lands, based on the same argument Ina! the lands are ttrtdera pill/ate farnlty trust. In the Appeal t59, the coun oi Appeal had clearly decided that such a claim by the 1" Apptlcant is barred by res ludtcata 18 SN Gfihllflxuvhyafiyflxxflloy "Nate Sunni nuvlhnrwlll be u... M van; i... nnglrrnllly MVMI dnuuvlnrll v.. aFlt.ING ptmxl Order NA app canons try the Applicants 67 To add irisilli Io iniury, irie Applicants filed uirae applicalions ior dlspusal oi me riiarrer on a point ol law umler Order 14A oi the Rules oi coun 2012. Trirs was done in me mids1 oi exliauslirig affidavits and mine wriuen submissions in re5Decl cl irie Dwnosed lmervenllon ario senirig aside bl me ex Dane onlers The Applicanls contend lriac iriere is no quesliori on lacls And «rial ilia 05 is sullable lo be disposed oi hased on a pbirii bl law under Order 14A ol me Rules ol couri 2012. as Under Order MA onrie Rules o1Cuun2D12, lhe oourl rriay dS|8mIIl'Ia ariyqueslicn cl law or consrrunion pl ariy docurrienl wriere ll appears that -(a) sucri queshon is sunable lor oelerrriiriaiiori wilriom rrie lull lllal ol Ihe amipn, aria lb) sucli oeienninalian will finally delerrriine irie enrire cause or insurer or any claim or issue therein 69. Trie Cmm D1Appeal in Pelmleurri lilasrbnal and y Ksralaan Negeri Tereriggariu & arrozlrer appeal [zoos] 4 cm 337 ar 353 observed (hsl a preliminary quesiiori srioulo be carelully and precisely irariien so as to avoid crmcunies cl rnierpreialion as no what is crie real allesliuri wriicli is being nrdered la be Irled as a preliminary issue 7n. Tne Order MA appllcatlon filed by me Applicants reads ‘1 a ri wi Amarl-III Llim Ham Tang Char serig mrari ia lsri suaiu arrianarr Derserldlrlnn flan bukan ariiariar. khalml l mni (‘public l crranlaple lrusrl din ialari dl buiusliari, dl lelflllkani ai eapali darl l arau oi perlirnoanakari irieiaiui kflerallflarll fakla aari ilrroana ~ urldang pl-ri rinamiarriari Rayuarl pain 3 3 ma uteri Vang AM Hakim Mahkamih Rayuin Abdul rurini NMR s Nariuia aslari can HMR Llm crrprig Fang uunra sehulal sunm ln|er airs oi pererippari as sehlrlgga as Alasari penqrrmnisn isrpuria cl Judgmenll 2 Dan aleh nu. seriula prriali dan rriana » rriaria Mahkamah dl lkull uleh keplllusan Marirarnari Rayuan mslulul doktrlrl rnlaraiia Remludlranla‘ car. siare Diciili 3 Juflem flu‘ Msrilmrisn prpa memplmyal kuasa Immk melurlzskanllrldakarl irii berdasmkarl A MA u llsl Kaeflah —K3Bd’iih Mahkamah znlz 7i In my view. llie Order MA appllcallon filed by me Applicanls is unwarranted and rleleciiye. Firsl, lriere is plainly a dispute oi lacls and findings‘ which mlgm to pe ventilated through an iriler panes nearing oi «lie os To , me oispuie wini regard in me eiieel pl me nnclings ol me courl of Appeal in me Appeal 159 Thai issue rias already been brougm Iolhe lorelrorii via me applieaiioris meo by me proposed iriierireriers lb eel is srn Gsamxxllvhyaanuxxnlvw “Nana s.r.i nuvlhnrwlll be mad a may i... bflnlnallly MIMI dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl mi aswde the ex pane urders. There 13 na need «or me Appncams to add to the \ayer or lmgalmn by filmg «us Order MA apnlucanons 12. Second. this \s not a wnl aclncm wnere were wm be a full trial. This Is an cmgmahng summons that win he detidad based on amuavn evidence. men; is already |o be an Inter panes heanng In decvde an the pendmg appucanans tor rmervennon and sewng zswde. Thmwmg an Order HA appncanon Inlc me rmx ws qune unnecessary 73 Third, there was actuauy no queslxon 01 law posed by the Applncanls for \he courts determmahon. Rather than 3 question 07 law. lhe Applicant nns put forward a prayer for the com to aware that me sa \msI \s a pnvale |Vus|, mslead of a public dlamable INS! Bill that is precxsew the Issue ror determination in me pending appncanans mm by me proposed Inlerveners to set aswde me ex pane orders 74 For me reasons above, I dlsrmssed the Or\1er14A applrcanons med by Ina Applrcanns. 75 Inna Applicants msagres wan the decision ollhe Cuurl or Appeal and me mterprelauon mane grounds or judgment onne cuun 0! Appeal In me Appeal 159, the 1“ Apphcanl should have connnuea wan his apphcahan «or weave |o apple‘ to ma Federal Court. 75 lnleresnnglyy the Weave question posed by the Appllcams Included the !aI\awing '\ Whmnsv when the own ul Appam make 2 new Vwndrng on Ian: and law Much wax m:| nan. by me Hugh Court. can the Court nlAwea\ msrmuud (Iva apvul on n.. grmmd oi ..s...a.m-. and esloppa\”’ Costs 77 Order 59 nAs1fl or me Rules a! com 2012 reads’ ‘Hz Cmlsdueln unnecessary clmms or wssues 10 ssr. in) ‘H addmnn la and nol m aeraganon many mm pmulmn .n ma Order. where a party has ram to anamnn any chum ar Issue wmch he has vawsed In any pmoaaunrgs, and has thereby unnecessarfly or umeasonaoly Dmtvanad, or addnd m we was m mmpleuly nl Imsre pvooeedlngs, the Com! may older man the wan cl Ihal pany snnn not be anuma m whola or n. pan, or mm any cnsls cncasmned by man damn onssua m any cnhuv puny man be pmd by hum to ma| unnar parry reqamlan av We mflmme or me muse or maller’ 2o srn Gsamsxuvnyaaguxxmog «wn. snrm ...n.ryn .. med m mm .. mn.u.y mm: dnuumrrl y.. mum M.‘ Berkenaarv Hananah Lol N0. 491 da\am Geran No. 20345‘ Lot No. 492 dalam Geran No 20349‘ La! No 292 da\am Geran Na. 5925 din Lot No. 960 dalam Gevan 20273 kesemua dx Seksyen 1. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Timur Lam, Pulau Plnang Da\am nerkara Amanan Parser: an Liam Hand Tong cnar Seng Tnuan Vndenlule cnean Leung Kean benarikh 3 3.1941 Dan Da\am Cndicfl Amanan Perssnmnan Lwsm Hood Tong chm Seng Tnuan cnean Leung Kean benankh 25.11 1935 Dan Da\am perkara Urusan‘ Pemadblran Bayaran Cukax Tanan Temmggak oxen Pemahen » Pemoncn Bsrkenaan Hananah - Hananan Amanah Perssndman |Pnvale Trust) Lwam Hood Tong Chow Sang Thuan henkulan Penman Deklarasx Mahkamah Tinggw Pwau Pinang benarikh 3.5.2023 Dan Dalam perxara Periannkan Pemegang aam unluk Amanah Persendman (Pnva|s mac) mam Hocd Tong Char Seng Tlwan benkulan Penman Deuaras. Mankamah Tlnggv Fulau Pmang s e 202:4 Dan Da\am psrkara Inter ans 3. 45. 45. 59 Ana Pemegang Amanah195O Dan Dalam psrkara - perkaua dalam perunlukkan dalam Kanun Tanah Negara Dan m G5oMxuvnyaanL7xxn\0v «mm. saw ...m.mn .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! 71: After lne deolslcn nl llle cpurl al Appeal In llle Appeal lss, me 1“ Applrcanl had med an applraalron lor leave Io appeal lpllle Federal ceurl. aul subsequently wrlrldrew NS Federal coun apphcallon Durlng lne rrearrng, I ouerled me oounsel lor me 1* Applloanl about me reason lor sud’: wllrldrawal The counsel lor lrle I‘ Appllcanl suggesled lrlal ll ls unnecessary lor lllrn lo appeal because llre Court ol Appeal rlad agreed wlllr nls argument llral me sald lnn.l n. a pnvale |rusl ln olller werde. me 1“ Appllcanl lell lnal rlad wnn. ll anylrnng, (he prpppsed lmsrveners shuuld be me ones lp appeal 79 Tnerealler. lne Apnlloancs prooeeded lo file me 05 on an ex parle basis and oblalrled lrle ex lzarle orders Thereby sleallnlly laklng me lands awayl based on lhelr ellegallorl lrlal lrle courl el Appeal had made a dealarallen ln lhelr lavour llral the lands are under a pnvale lannly (ms! l lnrnk llle Appllcanls rlad unneoessarlly and unreasonably pmlracted me nlaller, and esealalecl lrre llllgallpn eosl lcl be lnourred by lne pmpclsad lnlervenuvs an The Appllcancs lunller nled lllree applleallens under order MA ollrre Rules ol courl 2012. oslenslply lo save ludlclal llrne and eesls. Bul lrral ls yet anolner lnalanee ol fihng unnecessary appllcatlnns, and addlng to me costs pl [hears proaeedlngs a1 Havlng regard to me luregulng, I oonsldered ll approprlale lo order lal glunsl oosls M RM5D,DOU lo be pald lo (M lrllervensrs, wllh rupeol lo Enclosure e and Enclosure 2l mill: 1“ cs lnl Iaml wsls nl RMwl0l‘Ifl lo pe pm .a lne AG.wlI1l respeel la Erldnsure 9 and Erlclusule la ln lne 1" 05: and La) global coils pl RM5L7,flDD la be peld |o me lrnerveners. wlln vaspe-:1 ol Enclnsms 15 and Erllimura ls rn ms 2- os concluelpn 32 under order 32 rule 6 ol lrle Rules or cdun 2012. an ex pane order may be sel aslde. I suppose lrle rallonale lor lrral rule ls benause an ex pane order ls grarlled wllnoul lrle benell| el llearrng me elrler sll1e.Thal ls why ‘the party mavlng an ex pane applrcalrpn rncurs a most serlour. raspnnslli y‘ To make lull and crank drselusure, even ol nlarlers wrrlch are ncl| rl llls lavour. l lear me Applloanls have lallen sllon pl suon IN Gsomxxuvkyaalnvxxnlvw “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm re UIQG a may l... nrwlrullly ml. dnuuvlml Vfl nrlurlfl Wm! 63. Now, mm me benem uI hearing suhmssvons Iron: me prcpused inlerveners, I accspnhal Ihe ex pane ordevs were wmngIy granted. I must make (mugs rigm by semng aside me ex pane orders 34 For the reasons above, I gave leave Io the proposed Inlerveners Io Intervene in the OS And sel asme the ex Délfle orders Dated 7 December 2023 Q Quay Chew Soon Judge Mgh Cuurl uI MeIeyeI Fenang CMI Di siun NCVC 1 Qgflfli John Klmc Ban LeI (Mssvs Iemeu Klloo A /lssucmlas) Ierme Avnflcarus src Nan Mohammad Aysem hm Hap Humm‘ src Numl Famana mm Khahd‘ src Erma wam mm: mm Keflee‘ src um Syazwzm MIII Abdul Azlz (Almmey General‘: Chambcls) Ierme P’ Pmnosefl Innervener Ung cmn Kye and am 116 Wow {Mews P090, Cllnn 5 Ung) lnr me 2m Pmpoeea Imuvenen 22 em esmmuw.,.e.uxxnIo,, «mm. Sum nmhnrwm be HIGH m mm .. nr1gIn|HIy mm: dnuumnl VI nFIuNG puns! Dalarn perkava ln|Er alla Allnan 92 Kaedan 94 dan vile! alla Aluran 5 Kaedah 5 Kaedan — Kaedah Mahkamsh 2012 [Rules ol Calm 2012) Between Davld cnean Sang cnye Mlohael cnean Sang Jln Dr. Khaw W001 Soon Appllcanls And Tan Slew Jon So Mlau Sang Lea wally Tan cmn Hemg (Pemegang — pemegang Amanan Awam Llam Hood Tong cnm sang Tnuan) . . Proposed lnlervenersl Respondenls >mmg Gmlmds ol De lnlmducuon 1 These lwu maners were heard logelnev (culleclively “os"), namely: La) an ex pane Ollgmallng Summons No FA-2JNCv<2-BM-D5/2923 1‘1“ on am an an exvana Onglnltlng Summons No PA—2ANCvCr747—D5/2023('2" as“) 2 am os concern a lmsl known as ‘Llam Hood Tong Cher sang Thuan’ (“said trust") The sald lrusl was eslabllshed under a deed of Indenlure used 3 3 ml and a codlcll dalad 5.3.1941 execuleu by one chsan Leong Kean ('dlI:I:sad'). 3 The sand (lust pennin to low pleas: of land known as (1) Lcl N 491 under Geran No 2oa4a,( Lol Nu 492 under Geran No 20:49, Na. 292 under Gemrl No. 5935 and [N] Lul Nu. 960 under Gerarl 2027:, all m Saksyen I. Eandar Georgetown Daerah Tlmuv Laull Pulau Plrlang (collectively ‘I:nds”). 4 sm G5(1lKxUVkyaEyL7XXnlDg “Nair smnl ...n.mn n. n... m mm .. mn.u.y snn. m.n.n vu nrlum pmul 4. The I‘ and 2"‘ Appricanvs are beneficiaries nf the estate of the aeeessenn They are me green grandsons vflhe deceased 5. The Applicants had omenneo nrne lollawmg coun orders on an ex pane basrs (Lx>4\ec1we\y ‘Ix pen-no ordlrs (3) m nno was, nex vzme emeoeneo s n 2o23(‘1-ax rum nmnr') flrndev nn. 1!‘ ex on 2 under. . declamlmn was orenneo men nne earn mm rs a Drwne \ms| (and mi e Duhhn: chanlame wet). hassd on nrre mounds on maonnernn nnenea 3 a znzaomne Cowl ompvean, and In) m Ina 2'» as‘ an ex Dana onoeroaneo 27 e 2023 (ernenoee on 24 1 20237 n'z"< u mm entail Urnoer nne rv ex me nrder e rseaerenron was gvamsd \h:| nno Apphcanls be ippmmed .s the nrusnees onne sena nmsn. Am Ihnnlve Annnneernns he regnslzmd as me vvaollemrs ollhs landi. s. The proposed nnnerveners Ned apphcalimns no mlervene m me 05 and |o ssl asme nne ex pane omers There are [we sens 04 proposed Inlerverners. The men pmpased nnnervener re me Annorney Gernera1‘s Chambers nus"; 7 The second se| oi pronoseo mnerveners cumunse al nour rnnemenens 1“lrnlIrVIrnon”) They are me nrusnees 0! me lands (3) me n" and 2» Imsrverners were apponr-nao on 12 3 mm by: Panang mgr. Coun oroer ournneo by no An snrno J. no; nn. 3" am 4" nmwenen were apnmved byme AG no he eopormeo as me trustees Mme lands. we e Vellerlmm the AG aenea n5 : znnor Ln) nne an en: aw Imerveneri were appomlad ailhslmneas ems nernns by 2. Pernaml man courn onoer mauled by Wong Teen Meng 4 an 1 5 mm and nor on il 13 s 2923, me nu ma 2m lnlelveners were snnnn me veunslsved owners on me norms, nn menrcanacn|y esme Kmslees Mme sero nrusn 3 Annogenher, nrnere were six eppnncennons belote me Namely- la) m(h21“OS an e Mme ovappnneauonoaceo a a 2023 moo by nnennnervenm lar leave no Intervene eno no set asroe me 1“ ex pane uIder1Enc{usme an on s ruonroo on appVII:a\uzn dated eazaza met! by Ihe AG ver leave no Nerve»: arm to sen nsnde IIne1“ex pane mer nznenosuno 9)‘ 5 srn G5<xmxxuv>nyaanL7xxm0w «we. s.n.r navnhnrwm be mad on may r... nnnnnr-r mm: dnuamnl VI murna WM 111.7 a nmme cf appH::al\on daled 29 9 202: filed by me Anmrcarrrs (M mspnsal on a pmm at 1am umar OIusv14A no the Rules cl Conn 21:12 V1: a ws the AG (Enc\o5uve 191‘ (M a Helms av aapmurorr daled 2992n2a rm by we Apvhums dm aapom on a palm waw under oraarm MINI Rulesaicmm 2012 ms n yrs Il1e\Merveners(Erw1usum 217, (hi m the 2'4 us 1.; n mute olapplmsmn dam: 5.v zmvm um. Imurvenersimleava lo Intervene and m sm awe ma 2~< ax pane arder 1Enak1sMm :51, and 11.; a mhcu L11 applscamn dated 29.9 202: Wed by ma Apn|1canI: war «arm.» on a mum av law undav Drdav HA 471015 mm M Count 2912 (EnrJnsure1Bt 9. On 27.11.2023, Igave leave |o Ihe pmposed mtervenets (0 mlervene in me as Furlher, 1 sel aside lhe ex parle orders, I am dismissed ma Order 14» appnmamrrs men by the Appnrcarrrs Here are me gruunds 0! my d2c151on. Background lam: The 1971 05 10. 1n 1971, the grand uncle ov me 1-‘ and 2"-1 Aaplicams, together wrm elhsrlamnly members, made an apphcalmn to the Penang High Court via Origmallng Summons No. 357 011971 (-1911 05“; 11 The 1971 OS soughllorlhefollowmg reliefs. -111 mu lhn um: and herednamams new kmwn as >1a1a1rrg 491, 492‘ 292, 293 and 1615) mm Subdlmvon 1‘ Nnnh Ea:|D|s|m:1 Penang vnum ave held upon 1nenms1rcraa1.¢ undern am am 3 u m dnland In vomr pm um. mmuary unit of think many Knh an a (21 A1|emaIlve|y,maH7\e sane W515 be dlclimd 1a have vanes and ma: Ina saro Vnnds be arm ar-u ma pruum dwldsd among Ihe resnduary Vagalen 1.1 111. Dmnomonl sn1au|1n\bew1I\ am: am Cheah Lem Kean doceabsd ' 12 On 2 9 1962, the Fenang High Conn wsmissed the 1971 OS. Vn his grounds oljudgmenl dated 20 5.1952. Muslapha bin Hussain J hek! met me INS! created over me ‘Ends are manlabls lrusl and the princlple of cy- pres apphes There was no appeal agams| are rare decrsrorr ol Muslapha Hussam J 5 sm ssmmw1.,.a.uxxrr1o,, “Nana s.r.1...rr.rw111r.. .r... m mm r... nrighuuly mm: dnuumnl VII mum M1 Dis 2015 sun 1: Maxi, in 20:5, the 1“ Applicant niea a civil s n the Penang High coun via sun na. 21-NCVC-4-01/2015 (-2015 um ). Tne 2015 sun was filed by me 1' Appiiaani on oanaii oi riiinseii and ine omei beneiicianes of me asxaia anne deceased. 14 me 2015 suit spugrii ipi ma following ialieis '(a) a uaciaiaiion inai an subssqunnl sciians and I or noun pruceodings and] DV iuaginam ma amen made mnlrnry In H s Ong'salderdn|ed 29 March iaaa iwniai cnmnnsed lhe aVnlemen|iDnefl OMEIS aaiaa 9 Jana-Ely mi. 2 sevxainpei isez i2 Sememheffllfli. 16.JariuaN zone and 1 May min pe aeoiaiaa nail and vumi (bi niai ins axacullan 0| im oiav dalsd 7 May zrm mm by Jushcl Wang Yam Meng as sliynd pending me aispasai nuns urexenl autumn in max in iiuams cl Linm Head Ton: CNX Sena Thuani Amariah Kehallkan I\Wem' apppiniaa vine any sapsaqiiam pmsis bu miiimn: 15 The cause oi aciion oi me 1“ Apphcanl in me 2015 suit was based on his conceniion inai iris lands beiong lo his privaie iamily irusi, After a lull vial, ins Psnang Hign Com dismissed me 2015 suit on 22.3 2019. Ahmad snamir hm Moria saueii J awarded coats oi RMi5u,uoo in the iniamaneis. And cas|s nl RM5D,000 io ina AG. who had been sued as the em dalendanl in ma 2:315 sun 16. In his grounds or judgment dated was 2019 Ahmad snaniii J ruled against ine 1“ Apphcaril on me following gwund iai the «'4 Aapiiaanrs Sim In aiaini ma iams, an the basis inai may ais unasi a pnvi|e iamiiyinm, is band by ms judlcaia and Iiiua asio;-psi, and mi ins mm cnuisa undu in. llvdenlum aaiaa a 3194‘! V! a puaiia cnaiiiahie inisi. ma rial a niwaie Vamily imsi The ggfiai 159 17 The 1"App|icanI appealed in ma Cuurh11Appea| againsuna decislfln pi Ahmad snanni J vide civii Appeai Nu P—G1|NCvC)|W|—159—D3/2019 ('AvnonI 1597). on 27 2.2022, me coun oi Apnea: dismissed the 1" Appiiaanrs appaai. The grounds oi iuugnieni ciine com in Appeal aaieu 3.3.2023 is iepaiiaa as David Chsah sang cnya (bung/Hg xnis acnon for N G5nfl£xLlVkyaEnL7XXm0fi “Nair s.ii.i nuvihnrwm be UIQG a may i... nflmruflly MIMI dnuuviml Vfl nFiuNfl Wm! and on behalf or himself and the Derleficlar/es of the estate 0! cheah Leong Keail, deceased) y Sn Mrau song 5 Or: and other appeals [2023] 3 MLJ 726 la The court at Appeal dtsmlssed the 1" Apptlcahts dam to the lands on the ground that hts clalm is barred by res ttmtcala and estoppel. Aggneved wlth the deelstoh at the Courl et Appeal‘ the 1- Appllcaht filed an applloatlen tor leave to appeal to the Federal court via clvil applreatlen Nu 0B(f)—74-U3/2023(P) oh 24.3.2023 The 1“ Applleaht later wtthdrew the leave appllcallon by filing a hettce ol disoorlllrluance dated 25 4 zuza tn the Federal court. 19 The soltoltprs vepresentlng the Applteahts lh the os hereth, re Messrs lsmatt Khoo A Ass/scales‘ were acllhg ter the 1" Applicant tn the zuts suit Ur||l| the trrteryehers ehtatned a court order to remove Messrs tamatt Khoo A Assoclate and we partner, Mr John Khoo Boo Lat, lrorn repreeehttng the 1'' Applteaht The reason was due to epnlllct at thterest The present os 2c The 1-‘ Appllcant, tclgelther wtth the other two Appllcahts, ttled the 1-l 05 oh so 5 2oz: and the 2“ as on 22.5.2023. both on ah ex pane hasls. lh the 05, they laid clalm tn the lands that were the suhtect matter of the earlrer two suits Namely up the 1971 os betore Muetaphe Hussalh J. and (ll) the 2015 sult before Ahmad shartru and the Appeal 159 med by the 1“ Appllcanl. The Appttcants proceeded to ahlatn the all pane orders wttheut the lthewledge ot the AG and the lnlarveners 21. Here are my reasons Ior allowing the prupnscd imerveners to intervene in the es and tor aettthg astde the ex parte orders Ovggr 15 rule 6 2 (I2) ot the Rules at court 2ot2 22 UrlderOvdev15 rule 6(2j(b) of the Rules ot ceurt 2012, the court may at ahy stage at the pmoeedlngs order that the proposed tntervehers be added as panles This IS to ensure that the matter ts ellectuatty and ootnpls|ely adludlcaled upoh And tor the issue related to the rellet alarmed by the appttcahts to be justly and eenyentently tletermtned 23. I am eattahed that the proposed lhtenreners have a direct legal rhrerest In the matter th the ease ol the AG, he ls the oustpdiah pl publlc charllabls |rusI under seetloh 9 ot the Government PvuneedltlgsAc1 1955 In the case of the tntervehere, they were the reglstered owners and a arrt Gsmflxuvltyaayflxxnloy “Nair a.rt.l In-rlhnrwlll e. u... M van; r... erthr.ll.y Mlhln dun-vlnhl y.. nFluNG mar (mslees of ms wands. -mm they were remaoed by me Apphcams pursuant to me ex pane orders. 24 The Applicants mad the OS (or declaralxons aflectmg the Wands and ula‘ ’ng the ‘ands, but wimuul naming the proposed mlerveners as S pany. And pwceeded Io uhlzm me ex pane uvders I cunssder ms to be an abuse 0! the pmcess ol OOLII1 Hence. I] \s applopriale (D aflow the pmposed InlsNeners' appncauon to Intervene. Abuse otcmm Qmoess by me Applicants 25 The Federa\ Courl m Mansmn Pmpemes Sdn Bhd v Sham Chm Yen L ors [2021] 1 MLJ 527 at 542 — 543 relleraled lhe general pnncwmss an ex pane apphcalmns as Inflows‘ “[35] A: a generanme, no om: would be mac tn mu prujudiu on pmy unless ne rm 2». oppommify a/wag hurdm as/um However ex pans apphcatrons an rvaagmsed as runes:-my and annmonexs m oenzm cwcumxtanccs As ahservedby /mac: ./m Thomas A Edison Lm 1/Bu/Ioc)<(1912) 15 CLRd7§atp Aav Them rs z pmmarypvenpl gowrrwlg me animlmstvalrun o(1usm=e,LhalrIa man rs lo be condvmnodurmeurfl, and mum, is . ganuml mic, rm ommnoum on mm in an. pm/mime ols pafly unless he has me oaporlunrly oraemg huud m drlvnnu em muances occur where/uslfcs could not be done amass me sumac! mans! of the sur! wen preserved‘ and, 1/ ma! rs m danyar cl deurutllon by one parry, 0! yr mmsdrabm or 5000115 Gamay: D5 mlmmenl, me other may com to Illa Calm and ask rs: us vnlarpcsmon awn m the Ibsvnca L:/Ins apponam, on am gonna mm may would Wows araalsr Iruushu man Instant actran Eutwhen he dun: :5 and!/1e Caunls zsked tn dixruylrd um um: nqulnmml or mm»; m olnor side, the pafly mavlng lncws . most semws responsibility - 25. From me prewous suns med by me «~ Apphcanl and me mvulvemsnt uflhe sohcrlors for me Apphcams m the prevmus suns, |hey are iullyaware mat may are seekmg a snrmlar relief as (haw forebears In me 1971 es and me 2015 suI| In hum Ihase previnus smls, Ihe Applxcanls and (hex! lorebear did not succeed to obtain an uvderdedaring me wanes to be men !am1Iy’s pnvale (rust land The 1“ Apphcanfs Appea\ 159 agamst the Hwgh Court asmsmn m me 2015 sum was dismissed by me Court at Appeal on me ground M res pmucaxa Z7 Howe»/ev, the Ap l‘r.an|s persxsl byfihng the OS. Bul this mus. wnhoul naming the proposed imervenels as a parly \ regard that as an abuse 07 the com‘: ex pane pvccess Whaleverlhewr m\evpr2|aIIun ‘s oonoermng 9 sm Gsannxuwyaaguxxnwog «mm. smm ...m.mm .. HIGH m mm .. mmmy mm: dnumml VI mum pom! me grmmds or mgrnenl cl |he Courl 0! Appeal in me Appeal «as, me os should never nave peen filed on err ex pane basls 2a The Appllcants should rlal have excluded lhe proposed inlerveners lrorn me 05 me proposed lnlerveners are clearly lrrleresled pames All along, they have bee ' cllved ln lhe dlspule over the lands ln real, as reeenfly as 3.3.2023, when lnegreurms nfludgmenlallhe counomppeal In the Appeal 159 was dellvenad 29. The 1“ Apphcam had me ppppnunily la challenge me deuslon ol me calm ol Appeal lrral was rendered in me Appear 159. wmcrr had amrnrea me Hlgh cpurveaeelalon ln ulsrrriss ng rns olarm Io remuve |he lnlerveners as the |ms|ees ol the lands However, me 1“ Appllcanl uplad |o wllrraraw ms leave applleallon al lrre Federal calm. As such, we ruling of me zuls sun as well as me rullng 04 me Appeal 159 slands so. In me us and melr aifldavll In suppprl, lne Appllcanls selenwely nrgnlrgnleu certain paragraphs nflhe grounds 01 luagrnenl ol |he Cuurl of Appeal In lrre Appeal 159 And (hereby clalmed that [here Is a “declaraInn' made by the Cum 0' Appeal in Ihelrlavcur 31 Thls appears al pamgraph 9 or me Applrcanls amuanl ln suppnn amnneu on as 5.202: (Enclosure 2), ‘ rr reads -9; lzerrmrrprr ~ Pemnhorl Dermal urlluk mslaksarlakarl lminih nevsendlnan Llam Need Tana Chm Sang Thuarl msvlglkuh Iupuluun lhhkanuh luyusn lomuln pongllyllhaun hshlwi Amnnnh Llnm Hmd -renp cnar serv; man Ialah amanail persenplnarr- 32 However, the sealed order 0f the Conn oi Appeal in me Appeal 159 are rlol corllaln any suerr ‘dec|aralIon". The sealed order ol the Conn of Appeal VI me Appeal 159 oonlalnsd only me lnllowlng lerrns ‘(a7 Rayuan Pslayu eaalan ar Ialak, (la) Km sebarlyak RMJILDUD no sacara global urlluk klllgi ~\lgn xeslwzzm 596—l)3/2019, w.u2lNcvc)lA;.me.n4/zore. l=—m WCVCNWH ss- aalzmm, dl bayar kepafln nespanaen laerlarna semngga Kellnla lmakluk Kepad: bzyav-In nlnkalur flan (C) Kns sebnnyakRM10,0D0 noel bzyarkapad: Ruponden Keenan.- 33. The Applreanls hrgnlrgmed cenaln pans at me gmunds cl luagrrrenl pl me coun pl Appeal In paragrapns [so] — [55] Hauever, lne App ms mu rm hlghhghl lnal ulllrnalely, me 1-‘ Appllcanrs Appeal 159 was 10 sr~ G5mKxLNkyaEyL7XXmOg “Nair s.n.l mmhnrwm rs. LAIQ4 m mm r... nnglrrnuly mum: dnuuvlnnl vu nFluNG pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

CB-42JSKH(A)-1-02/2023

PERAYU Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] RESPONDEN NOR HAFIZ BIN HANAPI

Rayuan jenayah - Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 - Pegawai Perubatan dikatakan melakukan amang seksual terhadap pesakit kanak-kanak - Rayuan dibenarkan.

13/12/2023

YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=8cf87cf4-58f9-4424-9191-fcdca4d2f48e&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - CB-42JSKS(A)-1-02-2023 NOR HAFIZ v PP - final 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: CB-42JSKS(A)-1-02/2023 ANTARA NOR HAFIZ BIN HANAPI (NO. K/P: 871212-02-5415) … PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA ... RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: CB-42JSKH(A)-1-02/2023 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA ... PERAYU DAN NOR HAFIZ BIN HANAPI (NO. K/P: 871212-02-5415) … RESPONDEN 13/12/2023 10:01:19 CB-42JSKH(A)-1-02/2023 Kand. 24 S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Sesyen Di Temerloh Dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur Kes Jenayah No. CB-61JSK-2-09/2020 Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan Nor Hafiz bin Hanapi (No. K/P: 871212-02-5415)] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Ini adalah rayuan daripada Perayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen terhadap kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pertama Bahawa kamu pada 23/07/2019 jam lebih kurang 11.15 pagi, di Bilik Rawatan Klinik Kesihatan Kuala Tembeling dalam Daerah Jerantut, dalam Negeri Pahang telah melakukan amang seksual S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 fizikal dengan memasukkan jari kamu yang disarung kondom ke dalam mulut kanak-kanak Nama: …..ABC…. (No. KPT: …123…) berumur 15 tahun 01 bulan. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan- Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 14 Akta yang sama. [2] Timbalan Pendakwa Raya telah membuat rayuan silang dalam kes ini terhadap hukuman yang dikenakan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang dinyatakan sebagai tidak setimpal dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu. Pada peringkat kes pendakwaan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membebaskan dan melepaskan Perayu untuk Pertuduhan Kedua. Oleh itu untuk rayuan ini adalah untuk Pertuduhan Pertama. Keterangan kes [3] Secara ringkasnya keterangan menunjukkan bahawa SP3 telah pergi untuk mendapatkan rawatan di sebuah klinik. Pada masa yang sama Perayu adalah merupakan pegawai perubatan yang memberikan rawatan kepada SP3. SP3 telah menyatakan semasa rawatan itu dilakukan SP3 diminta menutup mata. Pada masa SP3 memberikan keterangan beliau berumur 15 tahun. SP3 dilahirkan pada 09.08.2005. [4] SP3 memperihalkan pemeriksaan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu dengan menyatakan bahawa pada masa kejadian tersebut Perayu telah menyemak nadi di tangan SP3. Selepas itu Perayu ambil stick letak S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 dekat lidah dan doktor meminta SP3 mengambil darah di bilik lain. Doktor memberitahu SP3 bahawa badan SP3 kurang air dan perlu dimasukkan air. Seterusnya doktor memberitahu bapa SP3 agar pulang ke rumah terlebih dahulu disebabkan proses untuk memasukkan air memakan masa. [5] Mahkamah juga mendapati SP3 telah memperihalkan secara terperinci kejadian tersebut. “TPR : Bila jari itu masuk dalam kondom atas lidah kamu, kamu rasa apa? SP3 : Saya rasa macam masuk plastik dalam mulut tapi macam berabuk-abuk dekat plastik tu macam ada habuk. Doktor tanya rasa apa, saya kata rasa plastik je. TPR : 3 jari dalam kondom atas lidah. Setakat mana lidah itu? SP3 : Setengah lidah. TPR : Pohon saksi demo.” [6] SP3 juga mendakwa bahawa semasa Perayu menggunakan jari memasukkan ke dalam mulutnya beliau mendakwa itu adalah kondom. [7] SP3 juga menyatakan juga bahawa beliau merasa pelik bagaimana Perayu boleh menutup mata SP3 semasa beliau diperiksa S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 oleh Perayu. SP3 juga menyatakan bahawa kejadian tersebut telah diberitahu kepada rakan-rakannya di sekolah dan salah seorang rakannya itu mempunyai keluarga yang bekerja di klinik tersebut. Kakitangan tersebut adalah makcik kepada seorang rakan SP3 iaitu Atirah. SP3 juga memberitahu kejadian itu kepada guru-guru beliau. Keterangan SP3 juga menyatakan bahawa beliau telah dipanggil oleh salah seorang kakitangan klinik tersebut untuk menceritakan kejadian tersebut sebelum memutuskan untuk membuat laporan polis. [8] SP3 menyatakan berkenaan pertemuan beliau dengan seorang kakitangan klinik dan kakitangan klinik itu telah memberitahu guru SP3. Di samping itu memberitahu bapa SP3. SP3 telah membuat laporan polis pada 11.10.2019. Kejadian berlaku pada 23.07.2019. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa saksi-saksi yang terdiri daripada guru dan bapa SP3 telah memberikan keterangan dan memperihalkan berkenaan kejadian yang berlaku itu berdasarkan kepada keterangan SP3. [9] Mahkamah juga mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil seorang penolong pegawai perubatan iaitu SP6 bagi menjelaskan prosedur rawatan yang boleh diberikan kepada kanak-kanak lelaki atau perempuan. Di samping itu SP6 juga menyatakan SP3 telah menceritakan kejadian itu kepada SP6 Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan Rosita binti Mat Ali dan Jururawat Masyarakat Norisma. [10] SP6 memperihalkan tatacara untuk rawatan kanak-kanak perempuan seperti berikut: S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 “TPR : Sekiranya pesakit tersebut seorang kanak- kanak perempuan di bawah umur, apa tatacara rawatan kita di bilik rawatan? Soalan saya. SP6 : Sekiranya di bilik rawatan, maknanya tiada tempat yang terbuka maknanya tempat tu tertutup apa semua kita kena memanggil peneman ataupun chefron. Mahkamah : Jika tempat itu tertutup kita perlu memanggil? SP6 : Peneman. Mahkamah : Peneman. SP6 : Yang boleh terdiri daripada keluarga pesakit ataupun staff. TPR : Terdiri daripada siapa? SP6 : Boleh daripada PPK (Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan) dengan Jururawat Kesihatan. Jurumakmal Perubatan pun boleh. Penolong Pegawai Farmasi pun boleh. Bagi yang berlainan jantina lah. TPR : Itu sekiranya kita? SP6 : Ya. S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 TPR : Kita, Penolong Pegawai Perubatan menerima kanak-kanak di bawah umur berlainan jantina kita perlu maksudnya dalam bilk rawatan yang tertutup tu perlu ada peneman atau chefron terdiri daripada keluarga pesakit ataupun staff klinik yang kita nyatakan sebentar tadilah? SP6 : Ya, betul. TPR : Adakah tatacara ini juga terpakai untuk pegawai perubatan yang merawat kanak-kanak bawah umur berlainan jantina? SP6 : Ya. TPR : Ada tak dalam mana-mana keadaan tatacara ini tak terpakai? SP6 : Tatacara ini tertakluk kepada mengikut arahan doktor.” [11] SP6 mengesahkan bahawa ketidakpatuhan kepada tatacara tersebut dia tidak pasti sama ada ia adalah kesalahan ataupun tidak tetapi hanyalah sebagai cara untuk melindungi para pekerja di situ. [12] Penelitian kepada alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menunjukkan bahawa beliau bergantung dan mempercayai keterangan SP3 sepenuhnya. S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 “[26] Dengan meneliti dan membaca keterangan SP3 dalam nota keterangan (Mahkamah ini hanya mengambilalih meneruskan perbicaraan kes in pada peringkat SP7 dan SP8 memberikan keterangan) Mahkamah berpendapat keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan lain iaitu SP4 dan SP8 konsisten dan tidak bercanggah antara satu sama lain berhubungan dengan elemen kedua ini. Perlakuan amang seksual oleh Tertuduh adalah apabila Tertuduh mengambil, menggunakan kondom dengan memasukkan 3 jarinya ke dalam kondom tersebut dan kemudiannya memasukkan jari yang disarung dengan kondom ke dalam mulut dan meletakkannya ke lidah SP3. [27] Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan keterangan SP3 berdasarkan rakaman dan nota keterangan, Mahkamah mendapati SP3 adalah seorang saksi yang jujur, berwibawa dan boleh dipercayai. Mahkamah juga percaya keterangan SP3 adalah keterangan sebenar tentang apa yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh terhadap dirinya pada masa kejadian. Tidak mungkin SP3 dapat memperincikan perbuatan Tertuduh terhadapnya sekiranya kejadian tersebut tidak berlaku. Bukanlah sesuatu yang mudah untuk seseorang mangsa kanak-kanak bagi kes jenayah seksual tampil memberi keterangan sekiranya perkara ini hanya satu rekaan. Secara keseluruhannya, tidak ada sebab untuk Mahkamah tidak mempercayai keterangan SP3 yang menunjukkan kejadian yang dipertuduhkan pada hari tersebut adalah benar-benar berlaku. Tambahan pula SP3 tidak mengenali S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Tertuduh dan merupakan pesakit yang dirawat ole Tertuduh ketika beliau hadir di premis tempat Tertuduh bekerja. [28] Selain itu, SP3 sentiasa berpegang utuh kepada keterangannya semasa disoal balas oleh pihak pembelaan. SP3 telah memberikan keterangan secara konsisten tentang amang seksual fizikal yang berlaku ke atas dirinya. Selain itu, SP3 dan saki pendakwaan yang lain juga dapat memberi penjelasan yang memuaskan kepada Mahkamah tentang percanggahan- percanggahan yang ditimbulkan oleh pihak pembelaan. Tambahan pula, Mahkamah juga mendapati percanggahan yang wujud dalam kes ini bukanlah percanggahan yang boleh melemahkan kes pendakwaan. [29] Disebabkan oleh keterangan SP3 sebagai seorang saksi yang kompeten dan dapat meyakinkan Mahkamah, Mahkamah berpendapat keterangan SP3 dapat berdiri dengan sendirinya sekiranya tiada keterangan sokongan lain. Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes PP v Mardai [1949] 1 LNS 65; [1950] 1 MLJ 33.” Elemen Pertuduhan Di Bawah Seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan- kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 [13] Berdasarkan kepada penelitian peruntukan di bawah seksyen 14 (a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 pada hemat mahkamah elemen kesalahan bagi seksyen 14 (a) adalah seperti berikut: (a) mangsa adalah kanak-kanak; (b) tindakan-tindakan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh adalah seperti di bawah seksyen 14 (a), (b), (c) atau (d); dan (c) mahkamah harus meneliti keterangan atau perbuatan di bawah seksyen 14 (a), (b), (c) dan (d) tersebut berdasarkan kepada keadaan bahagian yang disentuh, takat perbuatan menyentuh, kontak fizikal serta keadaan yang berkaitan dengan perlakuan di bawah seksyen 14 (a), (b), (c) dan (d) tersebut bagi menentukan sama ada ianya bermaksud seksual. Kata kunci bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14 ini ialah perbuatan- perbuatan di (a), (b), (c) dan (d) itu hendaklah bermaksud seksual. [14] Malahan penelitian kepada seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan- kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 telah terdapat huraian berkenaan perbuatan seksual dalam huraian kedua di mana ia mencadangkan bahawa apabila terdapat keterangan yang menunjukkan perlakuan di bawah seksyen 14 (a), (b), (c) dan (d) Akta tersebut, ia masih tertakluk kepada sama ada perbuatan tersebut tergolong di dalam maksud seksual yang dinyatakan di dalam huraian kedua tersebut. Ini bermakna apabila keterangan menunjukkan S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 bahawa misalnya berlaku sentuhan di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta tersebut mahkamah perlu meneliti keterangan bahagian fizikal yang disentuh tersebut dan keadaan di mana sentuhan itu dilakukan bagi memutuskan sama ada sentuhan tersebut adalah bermaksud seksual atau sebaliknya. Penelitian kepada peruntukan tersebut tidak menunjukkan bahawa perlunya ditunjukkan mens rea bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14 Akta tersebut. Dalam erti kata lain mens rea bukanlah elemen penting yang diperlukan dalam konteks seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 seperti dalam kesalahan jenayah lain yang lazimnya memerlukan mens rea. [15] Penelitian kepada alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menunjukkan bahawa kebolehterimaan keterangan SP3 bergantung kepada pemerhatian hakim bicara kepada nota keterangan dan rakaman Court Recording & Video-to-Text System (RVT). Mahkamah mengambil perhatian bahawa hakim yang mendengar keterangan SP3 adalah hakim yang berbeza dengan hakim yang membuat dapatan di akhir kes pendakwaan dan pembelaan. Mahkamah juga mendapati tiada catatan yang dibuat dalam nota keterangan berkenaan tingkah laku saksi semasa memberikan keterangan. [16] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dalam alasan penghakimanya turut menyentuh berkenaan dengan tingkah laku SP3 semasa memberi keterangan. Tingkah laku atau demeanor telah diberikan takrifan di dalam Black’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition seperti berikut: S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “Demeanour. Outward appearance or behaviour, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, and the hesitation or readiness to answer questions. In evaluating a witness’s credibility, the jury may consider the witness’s demeanour.” [17] Malahan di bawah seksyen 271 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (KPJ) terdapat peruntukan khusus berkenaan dengan tingkah laku saksi yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “271 Remarks as to demeanour of witness A presiding Magistrate recording the evidence of a witness may, at the conclusion of the evidence and at the foot of the notes of it, record such remarks, if any, as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of the witness while under examination.” [18] Apa yang jelas daripada peruntukan di bawah seksyen 271 KPJ tersebut ialah hakim yang mendengar keterangan saksi dikehendaki mencatatkan dalam nota keterangannya tingkah laku saksi semasa memberikan keterangan. Tingkah laku saksi adalah perkara yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dalam merumuskan kredibiliti seorang saksi. Hal ini dinyatakan oleh YA Hakim Raja Azlan Shah dalam kes Tengku Mahmood v Public Prosecutor [1974] 1 MLJ 110 yang telah menjelaskan seperti berikut: “But the demeanour is not always the touch-stone of truth. It is only one ingredient in arriving at a finding of credibility. But so S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 also is motive. Although in cases of this kind it is not easy to get satisfactory evidence, one must not also lose sight of the fact that at the same time it is indeed easy to 'fix' a man in the position of the appellant. A man who was not successful before the Public Services Commission may have hurt his pride and hurt pride is a ferocious beast. It is for this reason that a judge of fact should always test the complainant's evidence against the totality of his evidence and the probabilities of the case. Failure to do so does amount, in my view, to a misdirection, and if it can be demonstrated that the trial judge had failed to do that, his conclusion as to credibility, cannot, in justice, be regarded as impeachable, much less unimpeachable.” [19] Penelitian tingkah laku saksi tidak boleh dibuat semata-mata berdasarkan kepada pemerhatian melalui rakaman sistem RVT. Dalam hal ini Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Rayuan berkenaan isu tingkah laku saksi dalam kes Bunya ak Jalong v Public Prosecutor [2015] 5 MLJ 72 seperti berikut: “[56] The finding of credibility of PW4 necessarily results from the audio visual advantage the trial judge had of the demeanour of PW4. The record contains no record as to the demeanour of the PW4. Section 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: 271. Remarks as to demeanour of witness A presiding Magistrate recording the evidence of a witness may, at the conclusion of the evidence and at the foot of the S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 notes of it, record such remarks, if any, as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of the witness while under examination. [57] In Tara Singh and others v Public Prosecutor [1949] 1 MLJ 88; [1948] 1 LNS, Spenser-Wilkinson J in the Court of Criminal Appeal, said: It has been laid down, however, that ‘an impression as to the demeanour of a witness ought not to be adopted by a trial judge without testing it against the whole of the evidence of the witness in question’ (See judgment of Lord Greene, MR in Yuill v Yuill [1945] 1 All ER 183). This was a civil case and the principle applies with even greater force to criminal cases, especially where, as usually happens in this country, the witness is a non-European giving evidence in his native tongue through interpretation. [58] This was followed by Yusof Abdul Rashid J, in Public Prosecutor v Ku Lip See [1981] 1 MLJ 258; [1980] 1 LNS 166. [59] The impression as to demeanour from the audio visual advantage is something not easily capable of being scrutinised directly not only on appeal, but such impression may be affected from any delay made in assessing and noting that demeanour. Hence, s 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for it to be noted at the end of the notes as to that witness’s testimony. Without such a contemporaneous S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 note at the end of the notes of a witness as to demeanour as a basis or reason, references to demeanour to support a decision suffers from the impression of likelihood it is more of excuse to support the decision. [60] In the circumstances, the finding as to credibility of PW4 based upon demeanour from the audio-visual advantage of the trial judge is flawed and unsafe.” [20] Dalam kes ini Mahkamah mendapati tiada sebarang catatan dibuat dalam nota keterangan berkenaan tingkah laku SP3 oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang mendengar keterangan SP3 atau Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang meneruskan perbicaraan tersebut. Oleh itu Mahkamah berpendapat kehendak seksyen 271 KPJ tidak dilakukan bagi tujuan untuk mengambil kira tingkah laku SP3 yang menjurus kepada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkenaan kredibiliti SP3. Adalah tidak memadai Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang meneruskan perbicaraan ini bergantung kepada rakaman sistem RVT untuk menentukan tingkah laku SP3 dan memutuskan kredibiliti SP3. Adalah mustahak untuk hakim yang ingin menggunakan tingkah laku saksi bagi tujuan menguji kebolehpercayaan saksi mematuhi seksyen 271 KPJ dan tidak menunggu di akhir kes bagi menentukan tingkah laku saksi tanpa catatan berkenaan tingkah laku saksi tersebut semasa dia memberi keterangan seperti yang dikehendaki di bawah seksyen 271 KPJ tersebut. S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Apakah mahkamah ini wajar campur tangan dalam dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen [21] Penelitian kepada alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menunjukkan bahawa keterangan SP3 telah dijadikan alasan kepada dapatan mahkamah. SP3 telah dinyatakan sebagai saksi yang boleh dipercayai. Malahan tiada alasan untuk SP3 merekapalsu keterangannya. Ini ditambah pula dengan keterangan SP8 yang tidak goyah semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh peguam Perayu. [22] Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa kebolehpercayaan saksi adalah dalam bidang kuasa mahkamah bicara. Penentuan sama ada saksi itu adalah boleh dipercayai adalah berdasarkan kepada keterangan saksi tersebut diuji dengan keterangan saksi-saksi lain. [23] Dalam kes ini keterangan SP3 boleh diteliti bersama keterangan SP4, SP5 dan SP6. SP4 dan SP5 keterangan mereka adalah merupakan satu pengulangan keterangan SP3. Ini adalah disebabkan sumber keterangan adalah dari SP3. SP3 dan Perayu yang berada di tempat kejadian. Sementara SP6 adalah saksi yang menjelaskan bagaimanakah sepatutnya prosedur rawatan yang melibatkan pegawai perubatan dengan seorang kanak-kanak atau berlainan jantina. Di samping itu keterangan pegawai penyiasat adalah berdasarkan keterangan SP3 dan mengumpulkan eksibit-eksibit dan menyusun keterangan saksi-saksi yang lain. S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [24] Adakah kesemua saksi-saksi itu dapat mengesahkan dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen mengenai kebolehterimaan keterangan SP3? Mahkamah ini mendapati keterangan SP3 itu masih tidak dapat menjelaskan bahawa plastik yang dikatakan sebagai kondom. Keterangan SP3 bahawa plastik ialah kondom adalah berdasarkan pengakuan SP3 yang pernah melihatnya di kedai 7-Eleven. SP3 tidak dapat memastikan bahawa itu adalah kondom. Di samping itu mahkamah juga tidak wajar mengenepikan keterangan Perayu semasa pembelaan bahawa kondom memang ada di klinik tersebut untuk tujuan penggunaan untuk perancangan keluarga. [25] Mahkamah juga mendapati keterangan SP6 yang menjelaskan bagaimanakah kes ini bermula seperti di muka surat 71 hingga 72 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2A seperti berikut: “TPR : Siapa Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan? SP6 : PPK tu, Rosita binti Mat Ali. Mahkamah : Penolong apa? SP6 : Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan. Mahkamah : Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan. Nama? SP6 : Rosita binti Mat Ali Mahkamah : Lepas tu? SP6 : Dia maklumkan pada saya dia mendengar anak saudara dia menceritakan kes yang berlaku ini S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 ada terjadi pada budak sekolah. Sekolah Menengah Kuala Tembeling. Mahkamah : Lepas tu? SP6 : Lepas tu masuk kerja hari Isnin, saya buat pasal maklumat yang dapat tu, dia bagi nama betul. Nor Atna, saya tak berapa ingat nama dia. Mahkamah : Mana ni? Yang mana nama yang mana? SP6 : Yang kes hari ni punya. Yang budak bawah umur ni. Mahkamah : Dan nama tidak ingat untuk kes hari ini. SP6 : Saya cek buku pendaftaran, dan dapat kalau tak silap 27 ke 23.7. nama mangsa. Tulisan pun tulisan saya, saya yang daftarkan nama dia, pukul 11.15.” [26] SP6 semasa pemeriksaan utama telah menerangkan tatacara rawatan yang melibatkan seorang kanak-kanak dan perempuan di bawah umur seperti berikut: “TPR : Sekiranya pesakit tersebut seorang kanak-kanak perempuan di bawah umur, apa tatacara rawatan kita di bilik rawatan? Soalan saya. S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 SP6 : Sekiranya di bilik rawatan, maknanya tiada tempat yang terbuka maknanya tempat tu tertutup apa semua kita kena memanggil peneman ataupun chefron.” [27] Keterangan SP6 adalah hanya menjelaskan prosedur rawatan yang sewajarnya diikuti melibatkan kanak-kanak dan perempuan bawah umur. Dalam keterangan SP6 tiada penjelasan berkenaan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang diberikan oleh seorang doktor kepada pesakitnya. Ini dapat difahami kerana SP6 tidak berada dalam kedudukan untuk menyatakan perkara tersebut disebabkan SP6 bukannya seorang doktor terlatih atau pegawai perubatan yang boleh mengesahkan prosedur klinikal rawatan kepada pesakit. Ia tidak dapat membantu mahkamah untuk mengesahkan prosedur klinikal rawatan Perayu kepada SP3. Ketiadaan keterangan tersebut menyebabkan mahkamah tidak dapat mengesahkan keterangan SP3 sama ada tindakan Perayu memasukkan plastik ke dalam mulut SP3 itu adalah sebahagian daripada prosedur rawatan. Keterangan SP3 berkenaan Perayu memasukkan plastik itu ke dalam mulut SP3 adakah boleh dikatakan sebagai sentuhan seksual bagi maksud seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017. [28] Oleh itu dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang berdasarkan kepada kebolehpercayaan dan penerimaan keterangan SP3 sebagai saksi yang jujur dan tidak digoyah keterangannya serta disokong oleh keterangan lain iaitu SP5, SP4 dan SP7 adalah tidak dapat memenuhi lompang keterangan berkenaan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang diberikan oleh Perayu kepada SP3. Jika terdapat keterangan S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 sedemikian ia akan memberikan gambaran sama ada tindakan Perayu kepada SP3 adalah sesuatu yang bercanggah dengan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang sepatutnya. Jika ini berlaku maka sudah terang lagi bersuluh bahawa keterangan SP3 tersebut berkenaan kejadian itu boleh diterima oleh mahkamah. [29] Apa yang lebih penting dalam kes ini ialah keterangan SP3 sendiri yang tidak dapat secara pasti menyatakan bahawa plastik yang dimasukkan melalui jari Perayu adalah sebenarnya kondom atau sebaliknya. Mahkamah tidak boleh berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang samar-samar berkenaan dengan barang kes plastik tersebut untuk memutuskan bahawa keterangan SP3 bahawa plastik tersebut adalah kondom adalah sesuatu yang muktamad. Malahan dalam keterangan semasa perbicaraan juga didapati bahawa plastik yang dikatakan kondom tersebut tidak dikemukakan sebagai eksibit. Ini tidak dapat mengesahkan keterangan SP3 tersebut bagi menjadikan salah satu alasan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen mensabitkan Perayu. [30] Keterangan-keterangan yang sedemikian oleh SP3 tidaklah pada hemat mahkamah boleh dikatakan sebagai keterangan yang luar biasa meyakinkan (unusually convincing). Terma “unusually convincing” telah dinyatakan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 5 SLR 601 seperti berikut: “... testimony that, when weighed against the overall backdrop of the available facts and circumstances, contains that ring of S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 truth which leaves the court satisfied that no reasonable doubt exists in favour of the accused.” [31] Ia telah diterima pakai dalam undang-undang jenayah di negara ini melalui kes PP lwn. Mohamad Malek Ridhzuan Che Hassan [2013] 8 CLJ 359. Ia membawa maksud bahawa sekiranya keterangan adalah luar biasa meyakinkan ia tidak memerlukan keterangan sokongan bagi kesalahan jenayah seksual. Ini disahkan juga melalui peruntukan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 seperti berikut: “18 Keterangan saksi kanak-kanak Walau apa pun apa-apa yang berlawanan dalam mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang lain, dalam mana-mana prosiding terhadap mana-mana orang yang berhubungan dengan mana-mana kesalahan di bawah Akta ini, atau mana- mana kesalahan yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual sekiranya mangsa ialah kanak-kanak, mahkamah boleh mensabitkan orang itu bagi kesalahan itu berasaskan keterangan tanpa sokongan seseorang kanak-kanak, yang diberikan dengan sumpah atau selainnya.” [32] Mahkamah juga meneliti seksyen 16 Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak 2007 berkenaan dengan pemakaian Akta Keterangan 1950 bagi keterangan yang diberikan oleh kanak-kanak. Seksyen 16 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 “16 Pemakaian Akta Keterangan 1950 dan Kanun Tatacara Jenayah Peruntukan Akta Keterangan 1950 dan Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593] hendaklah terus terpakai kecuali setakat yang peruntukan-peruntukan itu secara nyata diubah suai oleh Akta ini.” [33] Ia menunjukkan bahawa prinsip undang-undang keterangan tidak wajar diketepikan semasa kanak-kanak memberikan keterangan tetapi haruslah memastikan ianya dibaca selari dengan peruntukan Akta Keterangan 1950. Ini bermakna pergantungan kepada keterangan saksi kanak-kanak iaitu SP3 dalam kes ini tidak boleh menyebabkan prinsip-prinsip undang-undang keterangan berkenaan kebolehterimaan serta kebolehpercayaan saksi-saksi di bawah Akta Keterangan 1950 dikesampingkan. [34] Dalam kes ini mahkamah berpendapat Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah gagal untuk meneliti keterangan-keterangan dan membuat penilaian yang sewajarnya dan hanya berdasarkan kepada kebolehpercayaan SP3 dan keterangan saksi-saksi lain tanpa memberi pertimbangan yang sewajarnya. Adakah ini mewajarkan mahkamah campur tangan dalam dapatan dan sabitan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen? [35] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu berhati-hati dalam kes ini disebabkan sebarang penilaian keterangan yang tidak teliti akan menimbulkan ketidakadilan kepada Perayu dan mangsa. Ia adalah disebabkan Perayu adalah seorang pegawai perubatan yang S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk memberikan rawatan yang sewajarnya kepada pesakit iaitu dalam konteks kes ini SP3. Penelitian keterangan yang tidak tepat akan menyebabkan Perayu akan terdedah dengan dakwaan amang seksual walaupun proses yang dilakukan terhadap SP3 tersebut alah merupakan satu prosedur klinikal rawatan yang wajar dilakukan kepada SP3. Oleh yang demikian keterangan berkenaan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang sewajarnya diberikan kepada SP3 perlu dikemukakan. Ini penting bagi membolehkan Mahkamah memutuskan sama ada tindakan Perayu terhadap SP3 telah melebihi daripada prosedur klinikal rawatan yang sepatutnya diberikan kepada SP3. Ini boleh menunjukkan bahawa Perayu telah melakukan amang seksual kepada SP3. [36] Ketiadaan keterangan sedemikian boleh menyebabkan Perayu akan menggunakan kedudukannya sebagai pegawai perubatan untuk melakukan amang seksual kepada SP3 atas alasan sentuhan tersebut adalah merupakan salah satu prosedur klinikal rawatan yang perlu diberikan kepada SP3. Ini akan menyebabkan jaminan perlindungan undang-undang terhadap SP3 tidak dapat dilaksanakan. Oleh itu adalah penting untuk keterangan prosedur klinikal rawatan ini dikemukakan daripada pihak yang mempunyai autoriti atau pegawai perubatan kanan atau pegawai penyelia kanan Perayu bagi mengesahkan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang sebenarnya. [37] Dalam hal ini Mahkamah ingin merujuk pandangan Suzanne Ost, Profesor di Law School Lacaster University United Kingdom dalam artikelnya bertajuk Breaching the sexual boundaries in the doctor- S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 patient relationship: should English law recognise fiduciary duties? Medical Law Review, Volume 24, Issue 2, Spring 2016, Pages 206– 233, https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fww001 seperti berikut: “First, this professional relationship, which is so fundamental in our society, offers a considerable exploitative opportunity for the unscrupulous doctor. This is because of not merely the significant imbalance of power, but also the unique way in which the relationship will readily furnish opportunities for sexual exploitation. Other professional relationships – such as social worker-client or solicitor-client – will seldom if ever do likewise, for as Archard explains, ‘[a] patient… must open herself up, lay herself bare, share significant confidences with her doctor.’ In such a relationship that is so dependent on trust, there is clear evidence that the sexual exploitation of patients has a deleterious effect on their mental well-being. Moreover, the sexual nature of the exploitation in the unequal relationship between the doctor and patient serves to render especially egregious the abuse of trust. Secondly, as I will demonstrate, a fiduciary duty not to breach the sexual boundaries can be grounded in the doctor’s professional responsibilities not to breach trust or to act out of self-interest, and is compatible with the contemporary pro-patient autonomy model of the doctor-patient relationship.” [38] Penelitian kepada Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 jelas menunjukkan bahawa perlindungan diberikan S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 kepada kanak-kanak daripada diperlakukan amang seksual oleh individu yang mempunyai akses kepada kanak-kanak tersebut dalam hubungan amanah di antara kanak-kanak dan individu tersebut misalnya seorang pegawai perubatan. Ini dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 16 Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 seperti berikut: “(1) Jika seseorang yang melakukan mana-mana kesalahan di bawah Akta ini atau mana-mana kesalahan yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual terhadap seseorang kanak-kanak, mempunyai hubungan amanah dengan kanak-kanak itu, orang itu hendaklah, sebagai tambahan kepada hukuman yang dia boleh dikenakan bagi kesalahan itu, dihukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum dengan hukuman sebat tidak kurang daripada dua sebatan. (2) Dalam seksyen ini, seseorang dikatakan mempunyai hubungan amanah dengan seseorang kanak-kanak jika kanak-kanak itu berada di bawah pemeliharaan, pengawasan atau kuasanya, termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada- (a) ibu atau bapa, penjaga atau seseorang yang mempunyai hubungan persaudaraan melalui pertalian darah seibu sebapa atau pertalian darah seibu atau sebapa, atau melalui perkahwinan atau pengangkatan, termasuk pengangkatan de facto; (b) seseorang yang mengasuh seorang kanak-kanak atau lebih bagi balasan berharga bagi apa-apa tempoh masa; (c) guru, pensyarah atau warden sesuatu tadika, sekolah, institusi pengajian tinggi awam atau institusi pengajian tinggi swasta; (d) mana-mana orang yang menyediakan perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan di kemudahan jagaan kesihatan Kerajaan atau kemudahan jagaan kesihatan swasta sebagaimana yang S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 ditakrifkan dalam seksyen 2 Akta Kemudahan dan Perkhidmatan Jagaan Kesihatan Swasta 1998 [Akta 586]; (e) jurulatih; dan (f) pekhidmat awam dengan apa jua pangkat dalam menjalankan kewajipannya di bawah mana-mana undang- undang bertulis berkenaan dengan kanak-kanak itu.” [39] Dalam konteks pegawai perubatan, seksyen 16 (d) Akta tersebut telah membolehkan hukuman yang lebih berat dikenakan terhadap individu yang melakukan kesalahan tersebut. Ia diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 16 (1) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017. [40] Perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan Kerajaan yang digunakan di bawah seksyen 16 (d) Akta tersebut telah ditakrifkan di bawah Akta Kemudahan Dan Perkhidmatan Jagaan Kesihatan Swasta 1998 seperti berikut: “"perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan Kerajaan" ertinya apa-apa perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan yang disediakan, dikendalikan atau disenggarakan oleh Kerajaan tetapi tidak termasuk perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan Kerajaan yang diswastakan atau yang diperbadankan.” [41] Namun demikian sekiranya keterangan yang dikemukakan tidak dapat menunjukkan bahawa tindakan Perayu ke atas SP3 tersebut telah menyalahi prosedur klinikal rawatan bagi Mahkamah memutuskan S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 bahawa ia adalah satu tindakan yang boleh digolongkan sebagai amang seksual sabitan dan hukuman terhadap Perayu akan menyebabkan ketidakadilan kepada Perayu dan pengamal perubatan lain semata-mata disebabkan kanak-kanak menyatakan mereka telah disentuh oleh doktor yang berkenaan tanpa sebarang keterangan bahawa sentuhan tersebut bukannya sebahagian daripada prosedur rawatan yang sewajarnya. [42] Mahkamah ini juga meneliti pandangan yang menarik oleh Profesor Suzanne Ost dalam artikel yang bertajuk The Medical Professional as Special before the Criminal Law In: Criminality at Work. Edited by Alan Bogg, Jennifer Collins, Mark Freedland QC, and Jonathan Herring, Oxford University Press (2020). © Alan Bogg, Jennifer Collins, Mark Freedland, and Jonathan Herring seperti berikut: “Returning to the first of the two central questions posed at the start of this chapter, it is indeed the case that the medical profession is dealt with in a unique way by the criminal law. In certain contexts, the medical professional role seemingly both exculpates doctors and allows medical opinion to have a significant influence on the interpretation of the criminal law. Yet this same role can also attract criminal liability in other circumstances. Looking to the second question, the strongest arguments in favour of this special treatment by the criminal law relate to the public interest in recognizing the beneficial and necessary role that doctors play in society and the public S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 interest in protecting the patient, the weaker party, from serious wrongs that can be perpetrated through the doctor’s position of power. More controversially, in some respects, the criminal law acts as the protector of morality under the guise of public safety. …. Thus, we return to the significance of context; whilst the medical profession continues to be a relatively autonomous category of personal work relations that is dealt with in a unique way by the criminal law, whether there is a public interest in treating doctors in this special way depends upon the duties being performed, the environment in which the doctor is working, and whether a serious wrong has been committed through the abuse of a position of power and trust.” Kesimpulan [43] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan saksi-saksi yang dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan, pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu, alasan penghakiman hakim bicara dan eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan Mahkamah ini berpendapat adalah tidak selamat untuk mengekalkan sabitan dan hukuman oleh hakim bicara. Kegagalan hakim bicara meneliti keterangan saksi-saksi dengan sewajarnya dan hanya bergantung kepada keterangan saksi kanak-kanak yang disokong oleh saksi-saksi lain yang mengulangi keterangan SP3 tidak dapat menyokong dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Ini ditambah pula dengan ketiadaan keterangan berkenaan prosedur klinikal dan S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 rawatan yang sepatutnya diberikan oleh doktor kepada SP3. Oleh itu dapatan sabitan dan hukuman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen adalah diketepikan. Nota Hujung [44] Sesungguhnya kanak-kanak adalah terdedah kepada kegiatan amang seksual yang dilakukan terhadapnya. Undang-undang telah digubal bagi membolehkan proses pendakwaan dan penerimaan keterangan saksi-saksi kanak-kanak tidak perlu dilakukan dengan menjejaskan kebajikan kanak-kanak. Malahan tatacara merekodkan keterangan kanak-kanak juga telah diperjelaskan di bawah Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-kanak 2007. Penggubalan Akta Kesalahan- kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 adalah merupakan tindakan yang menggambarkan kesungguhan badan perundangan untuk melindungi kanak-kanak. Namun demikian ia akan menjadi sia- sia sekiranya penyiasatan dan pendakwaan serta penghakiman tidak dilakukan dengan sewajarnya. Ia akan mengundang kepada bencana ketidakadilan kepada pihak Tertuduh dan mangsa amang seksual tersebut. Ia wajar dielakkan. [45] Pihak yang berwajib tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya mengambil jalan singkat untuk mengemukakan keterangan kanak- kanak dengan mengkesampingkan prinsip undang-undang dengan kepercayaan bahawa keterangan kanak-kanak tersebut sepatutnya diterima oleh Mahkamah tanpa perlu terikat dengan Akta Keterangan 1950 semata-mata disebabkan oleh penggubalan Akta Keterangan S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Saksi Kanak-kanak 2007. Ia adalah satu mitos dan kepercayaan tidak berasas yang boleh mendorong kepada ketidakadilan dan kezaliman. Bertarikh: 13hb. Disember 2023 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Perayu Ahmad Zahid bin Abu Hashim Tetuan Ahmad Zahid Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur Bagi Pihak Responden Ain-Nur’Amiyerra Awod binti Abdullah Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur S/N 9Hz4jPlYJESRkfzcpNL0jg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CA-22NCvC-66-12/2017

PLAINTIF UNITED HIGHLANDS SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) ROZZANA CHUNG BINTI ABDULLAH 2. ) GAN SIAN SOON 3. ) CHUNG NYAT DAU 4. ) CHARLES PHILOMEN A/L V. DAVID 5. ) CHONG MUN CHENG 6. ) LEE EK WEE 7. ) NG PIK YEN

The court allowed the Plaintiff’s Claim with cost amounting to RM100,000.00. This claim is about the unauthorised positions held by the Defendants in a Joint Management Body and it is based on the Tort of Deceit. This Court is agreeable with the Plaintiff that the Defendants has on several occasions acted with deceit though having full knowledge of the cancellation letter issued and the Award granted by the Tribunal. The Defendants was obstinate in maintaining their position in JMC though they were fully aware that their appointment in JMC has been nullified and reversed by the cancellation letter. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim was allowed with cost.

13/12/2023

YA Dato' Haji Zainal Azman Bin Ab. Aziz

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=02530bba-ce57-4e48-bd27-ad9302ba38e4&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - AP CA-22NCVC-66-12-2017 UNITEDHIGHLANDS V ROZZANA BP-KM1 10.2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR WRIT SUMMONS NO: CA-22NCVC-66-12/2017 BETWEEN UNITED HIGHLANDS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 80802-D) ...PLAINTIFF AND 1. ROZZANA CHUNG BINTI ABDULLAH (NRIC NO: 580402-10-6224) 2. GAN SIAN SOON (NRIC NO: 761108-04-5451) 3. CHUNG NYAT DAU (NRIC NO: 570721-10-5648) 4. CHARLES PHILOMEN A/L V. DAVID (NRIC NO: 521017-01-5115) 5. CHONG MUN CHENG (NRIC NO:680623-08-5154) 6. LEE EK WEE (NRIC NO: 790514-14-5047) 7. NG PIK YEN (NRIC NO: 600526-07-5218) ...DEFENDANTS 13/12/2023 16:07:05 CA-22NCvC-66-12/2017 Kand. 266 S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. The Plaintiffs in this suit has filed Enclosure 1 to claim against the Defendants and this honorable court has allowed the Plaintiff’s claim under prayer 40.1, 40.2, 40.4, 40.7, 40.8, 40.9, 40.10 and 40.11 of the Amendment Statement of Claim with cost amounting to RM100,000.00. MATERIAL FACTS 2. The Plaintiff in this suit the developer of a hilltop development known as “Selesa Hillhomes” at Bukit Tinggi, 28750 Bentong, Pahang Darul Makmur, and also is the registered owner to 47 units of apartments in Selesa Hillhomes as of to-date. 3. By virtue of the Strata Management Act 2013 (“Act 757”), the Plaintiff, being the developer, is a mandatory and statutory member of a Joint Management Body of Selesa Hillhomes (“the JMB”) until a Management Corporation is formed. The JMB in turn is managed by a committee by the name of the Joint Management Committee or “JMC” in short. S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 4. The 1st Defendant (Rozzana) and the 2nd Defendant (Albert Gan) were respectively the Chairman and the Secretary to the JMC from 9.9.2015 to 8.9.2017 (reference made between pages 5 to 8 of Bundle B), whereas the 3rd Defendant (Andolene Chung) was the Treasurer to the JMC from 12.7.2015 to 11.7.2017 (reference made between pages 1 to 4 of Bundle B). 5. About early July 2017, the Plaintiff noted early that the 3rd Defendant, Andolene Chung, would have had her office as Treasurer to the JMC expired by 11.7.2017. Subsequently the office the 1st Defendant, Rozzana, and the 2nd Defendant, Gan, respectively as the Chairman and Secretary would have expired by 09.09.2017 too. 6. The Plaintiff throughout the years has made 4 separate objections regarding the said expiry. On 5.7.2017 the Plaintiff issued an e-mail to the Commissioner of Building of Bentong Municipal Council (“COB”), and carbon copy (cc) the same to every Defendant herein and alerted the pending expiry of her office by 12.07.2017. If no general meeting were to be held, her expiry of term as Treasurer of JMC on 12.7.2017 would have rendered the entire JMC illegal by S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 operation of Act 757, (refer to Bundle K, page 1 or Bundle B, page 10). 7. 17.07.2017, that is before the expiry of the office of Chairman and Secretary’s position respectively on 09.09.2017, whereby It informed the COB again that the course of action in scenario like this would be to exercise the role in Act 757 and requisition for a General Meeting. (Refer to Bundle J, page 1497). 8. 07.10.2017, whereby the Plaintiff emailed the Defendants directly and cc to the COB that by now, the JMC is unlawful, (refer to Bundle C, page 252). 9. 25.11.2017, the Plaintiff emailed the Defendants to raise its objection on the latter’s legal constitution again (refer to Bundle C, page 218). 10. On 07.07.2017, the COB’s responded with a letter of reply dated 7.7.2017 (received by the Plaintiff on 25.7.2017). The gist of the reply letter is : S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 “Adalah dimaklumkan bahawa pengiraan tempoh pemegangan jawatan dalam JMB/JMC bermula dari Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan selepas Akta 757 dikuatkuasakan. 3. Justeru itu, tempoh pemegangan jawatan akan tamat pada Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan yang berikutnya diadakan” 11. Dissatisfied with the decision made by COB which is contradicting to ACT 757, Plaintiff has then on 05.09.2017 filed a claim in the Strata Management Tribunal via the Claim No. TPS/C-2137-8/17 (“the said Tribunal Proceeding”). This is to squash or reverse the decision made by COB. 12. The President of the Tribunal, Tuan Rejinder Singh a/l Gurdev Singh, at the end accepted the Plaintiff’s arguments, and has on 27.9.2017 granted an award in favour of the Plaintiff as follows:- “Surat Bil (83) dlm MPB/COB/BT/01/08 Jld 10 bertarikh 07 Julai 2017 yang dikeluarkan oleh Penentang di mana menyatakan bahawa “tempoh pemegangan jawatan akan tamat pada Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan yang berikutnya diadakan” adalah S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 dibatalkan tanpa kos dan Tuntutan Balas oleh Pihak Penentang juga dibatalkan tanpa kos”. (“the Award”) 13. Despite the Award granted by the Tribunal, COB issued a letter dated 9th October 2017 that gave a contrary direction to the then JMB that consisted of the 1st to 7th Defendants (“Controversial Letter”). The COB ordered the then JMB to convene a meeting to elect new office bearers to hold office until the next AGM instead of announcing that the 1st to the 7th Defendants are no longer validly appointed members of the JMC. (refer to page 185-186 of Bundle B or pages 253-254 of Bundle C). 14. Instead of complying with the effect of the said Award, the 1st to 7th Defendants (who made up the then JMC) proceeded to hold the said 101st Meeting on 12.10.2017 as if they were still the validly appointed members of the JMB and reappointed themselves back to the driving seats in the JMB. 15. Dissatisfied with the Defendants action, the Plaintiff’s representative went to the COB’s office again on 19.10.2017 to seek explanation behind the issuance of the Controversial Letter. Which then the S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 COB conceded that they have been poorly advised. To rectify the matter, COB subsequently rescinded the Controversial Letter by way of its letter dated 30.10.2017 (“Cancellation Letter”) and communicated the Cancellation Letter to the JMB. With the Controversial Letter being cancelled and rescinded it automatically causes the 101st JMC meeting to be null and illegal. 16. Thus, the Plaintiff has filed this matter to enforce the Award granted by the Tribunal and further claims against the Defendants for holding the position under JMC for an invalid period. MAIN ISSUE The Tribunal Award dated 27.9.2017 and Cancellation Letter from COB dated 30.10.2017. 17. This Court is fully aware of the power that is vested upon the Strata Management Tribunal to grant an award which is binding upon the parties. 18. The power that is vested upon the tribunal to make an award is under Section 117 of the Strata Management Act (“SMA”). Such Award that is granted by the Tribunal is binding upon the parties S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 and must be upheld as if as it was an Order by the Court Itself. This was mentioned under Section 120(1)(a) & (b) of SMA. 19. This court is guided by the authority referred by the Plaintiff in their submission which is the Federal Court Case of AKITEK TENGGARA SDN BHD v MID VALLEY CITY SDN BHD [2007] 5 MLJ 697 that has clearly explained the doctrine of res judicata in cases that is decided via a tribunal. 20. In short, the Tribunal Award dated 27.9.2017 (“the Award”) has stated that the letter dated 7.7.2017 that was issued by COB regarding the period of holding a position in JMC is cancelled. 21. The effect to this Award is that upon the expiry of the terms of the Treasurer or Chairman or Secretary, the JMC as a whole ceases its power and legal standing to execute duties and responsibilities of the JMB. 22. This court agrees with the Plaintiff’s view on this matter that, unless the award is challenged or nullified, it is still legally binding upon the parties. Thus, it is clear that the Defendants has held their position S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 in JMC for an illegal term and conducted the 101st General Meeting illegally even after the Award was granted. 23. The Defendant has argued on their Defense by stating that they are not bounded by the Award Granted just because they were not a party to the said Tribunal Proceeding. However, during the trial conducted it has come to the findings of this court that the Defendants have caused JMB to dispute the said Award via Putrajaya Strata Management Tribunal Proceeding No. TPS/C3291-11/2017. This clearly showed that the Defendants has take an opposite stand with regards to the Award. The Defendants effectively took actions to strike out the effect of the Award against them. 24. By saying that they were not a party to the Tribunal Proceeding in granting the Award then having to priorly take actions to strike out the very same Award clearly shows that the Defendants has switched their stands for their very own benefit. S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 25. This court is guided by the Court of Appeal case of Cheah Theam Kheng v City Centre Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Other Appeals [2012] 2 CLJ 16 held that: “[105] In the words of Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC in Express Newspapers Plc v. News (UK) Ltd And Others [1990] 3 All ER 376, at pp. 383 to 384: There is a principle of law of general application that it is not possible to approbate and reprobate. That means you are not allowed to blow hot and cold in the attitude that you adopt. A man cannot adopt two inconsistent attitudes towards another: he must elect between them and, having elected to adopt one stance, cannot thereafter be permitted to go back and adopt an inconsistent stance.” 26. If the Defendants, has acted upon measure to strike out the Award granted, it means that the Defendant’s acknowledges the binding effect of the Award on them. For later on to come and say they are not bound by it just because they were not a party to the Tribunal Proceeding is a mere denial and a change of stand. S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 27. This court is of a view that the Award granted is binding and must be upheld. If the Defendants argues by depending on the Controversial letter that has been issued by COB, that particular defense does not stand as COB has retracted and cancelled the controversial letter via their cancellation letter dated 30.10.2017. 28. That being said, the 101st JMC Meeting that was held by the Defendants shall be considered as illegal and all the decisions made shall be considered as void. This is because the cancellation letter issued by COB has effectively reversed the decision they have made. 29. At all material times DW1 has admitted during the cross examination that the JMB then was fully aware of the Award granted and the cancellation letter that was issued. (notes of proceeding dated 8.11.2022 at page 147). 30. By referring to both the Award and the Cancellation Letter, it is very clear that the JMC has become illegal upon the expiry of the office of the Treasurer, Chairman and Secretary. Any actions, or decision that was made thereafter is to be considered as null and void. S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 THE TORT OF DECEIT 31. This honorable court is agreeable with the Plaintiff that the Defendants has on several occasions acted with deceit though having full knowledge of the cancellation letter issued by COB and the Award granted by the Tribunal. 32. This court is guided by the Federal Court case of TAKAKO SAKAO (F) V NG PEK YUEN (F) & ANOR [2009] 6 MLJ 751, “[23] The 'fraud' of which Lord Halsbury spoke in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd includes equitable fraud. In the recent Australian case of The Bell Group Ltd (In liquidation) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) [2008] WASC 239; 70 ACSR 1, Owen J discussed the distinction between equitable fraud and fraud at common law. His Honour said: 4851 The term common law fraud is often used to describe the tort of deceit, or the making of fraudulent misrepresentations. The tort of deceit is said to encompass cases where the defendant knowingly or recklessly makes a S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 false statement, with the intention that another will rely on it to his or her detriment. 4852 Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1; (1889) 14 App Cas 337 illustrates the principle that honesty is a duty of universal obligation, existing independently of contract or fiduciary obligations. In Derry v Peek, the House of Lords rejected the argument that a claim of negligence would support an action for fraudulent misrepresentation. In so doing, Their Lordships set the standard for common law fraud. Lord Herschell said, at p 374, that to succeed, a plaintiff must prove 'that a false representation has been made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false'. In other words, there must be a lack of an honest belief in the truth of the representation. In Armitage v Nurse [1997] EWCA Civ 1279; [1998] Ch 241; [1997] 3 WLR 1046, Millett LJ discussed the meaning of 'actual fraud' in the context of an exemption clause. At p 1053, His Lordship described actual fraud as connoting, at least, 'an intention on the part of the trustee to pursue a particular course of action, either knowing that it is contrary to the interests of the beneficiaries or being S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 recklessly indifferent whether it is contrary to their interests or not'. 33. The issue that has been brought upon this court is whether the Defendants action falls under the tort of deceit. 34. This court would like to bring the attention to the fact that the Defendants has at all material times acted upon the letter issued by the COB only when it benefited them. This is crystal clear when the Defendants has fully obliged to the controversial letter and quickly held the 101st JMC Meeting. When the cancellation Letter was later on issued, none of the Defendant acted on it rather they just brushed the letter aside and chose to only dispute the Award. 35. This is very clear that, when the cancellation letter issued by COB was not in their interest, the Defendants chose not to comply with it as it would affect their election and position in the JMC. 36. The Defendants was obstinate in maintaining their position in JMC though they were fully aware that their appointment in JMC has been nullified and reversed by the cancellation letter. S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 37. Besides that, the Defendants has also misguided the other residents during the Annual General Meeting held on 30.12.2017 (which is after the cancellation letter issued), when the Defendants has failed to disclose that they are no longer the person authorized to hold positions in the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurers office as their term of appointment has expired. 38. The 1st Defendant, DW1 has also fully taken upon the role as the presiding Chairman of the AGM though having full knowledge that is illegal to do so. 39. The Defendants never once highlighted to the floor in the AGM of the existence of the Cancellation Letter. Instead, the late Charles (the 4th Defendant) informed the floor that he was appointed into the JMC as the result of the COB’s Controversial Letter (which by then was reversed and cancelled via the cancellation letter). Other Defendants never corrected such misrepresentation. 40. This court would not take into consideration the argument raised by the Defendants that the cancellation Letter did not directly tell whether they should relinquish the self-elected positions. S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 41. This is because the cancellation letter is very clear and obvious regarding the COB’s intention to reverse their decision made via the controversial letter. Several statements given during the whole trial was also sufficient to proof that the Defendants understood the content of the cancellation letter. 42. The Plaintiff was able to proof to this honorable court that the Defendants has insisted to stay in power to obtain a loan to help the Owner’s Association to pursue a legal suit. Based on the findings of this court, the act of receiving loans and to pursue legal action are actually ultra vires to the Association’s Constitution. 43. This court strongly believes that, the Defendants has acted in an mischievous manner when they insisted to hold their position knowingly it is illegal to do so. By holding their position, they have made misrepresentations to the 260 residents that were present during the AGM. 44. On these grounds alone, the Defendants actions fall within the definition of Tort of Deceit that was mentioned in the Federal Court case Takako Sakao. The evidence found during trials has showed S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 that deceit, false representation and lack of honest belief have been shown. CONCLUSION 45. In the light of the authorities, it is an inescapable conclusion that the Plaintiff has successfully proved on the balance of probabilities of this case thus the Plaintiff’s claim was allowed with cost. t.t. ZAINAL AZMAN BIN AB AZIZ JUDGE HIGH COURT MALAYA OF KUANTAN PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR DATED : 27 OCTOBER 2023 S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Plaintiff Solicitor: Encik Wallace Wong Tetuan Wong & Lu-Yen Partnership 7.07 Wisma Conlay, No. 1 Jalan USJ 10/1 47620 Subang Jaya, Selangor Ref. : 77.L7014.05/20 Email : office.wlyp@gmail.com Defendant’s Solicitors: Mr T. Jayadeva together with Mr Loganathan Tetuan Syarikat Radhakrishnan Suit 26B-3, Jalan SS6/3, Kelana Jaya 47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan Ref. : CIV/2234(6)(CA)/23/TJ/kv Email : srklaw83@gmail.com S/N ugtTAlfOSE69J62TAro45A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0