Legal Updates - June 2015

Author:Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill
Profession:Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill


Administrative Law

Kempas Edible Oil Sdn Bhd v Prabdhial Singh a/l Dardara Singh [2015] 3 AMR 529; [2015] 1 LNS* 241 (CA)

High Court judge erred in allowing application for judicial review to issue writ of certiorari to quash award in favour of employer

In examining procedural aspect of decision-making process adopted by employer in arriving at decision to terminate employee, High Court judge had departed from established principles of law as laid down in Wong Yuen Hock v Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd and another appeal and Dreamland Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd v Choong Chin Sooi Approach taken by Industrial Court consistent with exercise of its function as prescribed by Industrial Relations Act 1967 in having to determine for itself whether employer had established valid reason for employee's dismissal High Court judge in criticising Industrial Court's approach had overlooked fact that if latter had considered itself bound by findings of Sessions Court or guided by those findings, then it would have failed to discharge its function The judgment may also be viewed here.


RHB Bank Bhd (substituting Kwong Yik Bank Bhd) v Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 AMCR~ 871; [2015] 1 LNS 103 (CA)

Whether claim statute barred under s 6(1) Limitation Act 1953

High Court had allowed itself to be led by submissions on accrual of cause of action from issue of notice(s) of demand Error led court to a decision it would not have made had it not been for such error — fit and proper case demanding appellate intervention The grounds of judgment may also be viewed here


Azman Jufri v Medtronic Australasia Pty Ltd and another appeal [2015] 5 CLJ 1026; [2015] 4 AMR 45 (CA)

Whether judgment creditor estopped from amending date of act of bankruptcy

Misstatement as to date of act of bankruptcy in creditor's petition did not prejudice judgment debtor. Further, no evidence to show that as at date of act of bankruptcy (30 May 2013), judgment debtor had made any attempt to satisfy judgment debt or that judgment debtor had any counterclaim, set off or cross demand. No substantial injustice caused by error in date of act of bankruptcy. Section 131 Bankruptcy Act 1967 ("BA 1967") could be invoked to regularise creditor's petition. Address relied on by judgment creditor was obtained from National Registration Department of Malaysia. Further, judgment debtor's stand that service of bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition effected at wrong address was contradicted as he had admitted to receiving a letter issued by judgment creditor to the very same address that he contended was the wrong one. No express stipulation to say that requirement to annex petition to verifying affidavit is mandatory. Form 11 prescribed by r 106 Bankruptcy Rules 1969 ("BR 1969") merely adverts to "the petition hereunto annexed". Accordingly, failure to annex petition to verifying affidavit only a formal defect or irregularity, curable within the meaning of s 131 BA 1967 and r 274 BR 1969. Clear stipulation in r 18(1) BR 1969 making it mandatory for application to be filed by summons in chambers. Filing of a notice of...

To continue reading