Legal Method Tutorial 3 PDF

Preview

Summary

111111111111111111111111111...

Description

Francesca Chin Nyuk Oi 1171100407 (T7)

1. List down in alphabetical order all law reports available at the Malaysian collections. Older Law Reports -Federated Malay States Law Reports which began publication in 1922 -Johore Law Reports 1915 – 1940 -JR Innes’ A Short Treatise on Registration of Title in the Federated Malay States, with Reports of Cases under the Land and Mining Laws from 1907 – 1913 -Malayan Union Law Reports 1947 -Straits Settlements Law Reports -William Norton Kyshe’s Cases Heard and Determined in Her Majesty’s Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements’ 1808 – 1884 General Law Reports -All Malaysia Reports [AMR] 1992 – current -Current Law Journal [CLJ] (launched in 1981 with digest of cases but began reporting full judgments from 1983 – current) -Malayan Law Journal [MLJ] 1932 – current -Malaysian Law Review Appellate Courts [MLRA] -Malaysian Law Review High Court [MLRH] Specialist Law Reports -All Malaysia Commercial Reports [AMCR] 2011 – current -Asia Intellectual Property Reports [AIPR] 1991–1995 (includes reports from Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Philippines) -Industrial Law Journal (LexisNexis) [ILJ] 2011-current -Judicial Decisions Affecting Bankers and Financiers edited by Dato’ Syed Ahmad Idid (1st ed 1994, 2nd ed 2003) -Malaysia & Singapore Company and Security Law Cases [MSCLC] -Malaysia & Singapore Tax Cases [MSTC] 1991 – current (includes judgments of -Privy Council, SC, HC & the Special Commissioners of Income Tax) -Malaysian Consumer Law Journal [My.Consum.LJ] 2011 -Malaysian Labour Law Reports [MLLR] 1968–1972 (published by the Industrial Court) Malaysian Labour Law Reports [MLLR]/Industrial Law Reports [ILR] 1980 – current (published by Malaysian Current Law Journal) -Personal Injury Reports [PIR] 2007 – current -Shariah Law Reports (LexisNexis) [ShLR] 2005 – current -Syariah Reports/Laporan Syariah [CLJ(Sya) 2004 – current (by Malaysian Current Law Journal) -The Jurnal Hukum 2000 – current (publishes cases decided in the Syariah Courts of the States of Malaysia. It also contains exclusive articles on Islamic law) Superior Courts Reports -Malayan Appeal Cases (MAC) 1995–1998 -Privy Council Cases (PCC) 1875–1990 -Supreme Court Report (SCR) 1986–1996 -Business Law Journal [BLR] 1993 - 1996 -Current Law Journal [CLJ] 1981 – -Current Law Journal Islamic Law (Selected Cases) 2004 [CLJ(ISL)] -Current Law Journal Laporan Syariah (Kes-Kes Terpilih) 2004 [CLJ(Sya)] – 2004 -2015

Francesca Chin Nyuk Oi 1171100407 (T7) -Current Law Journal: Quarterly Law Review [QLR] 2006 - 2012 -Current Law Review: a supplement to Current Law Journal [CLR] 2013 – -Federated Malay States Law Report [FMSLR] -Industrial Law Journal (LexisNexis) [ILJ] 2010 – -Industrial Law Reports [ILR] 1983 – -Innes Reports 1902 - 1913 [Inn] -Jurnal Hukum 2000 -Kyshe's Reports 1808 - 1890 [Ky] -Malayan Cases [MC] Vol. I - IV -Malayan Law Journal [MLJ] 1932 – -Malaysia and Singapore Company and Securities Law Cases [MSCLC] -Malaysia and Singapore Company and Securities Law Reports [CSLR] -Malaysia and Singapore Tax Cases [MSTC] 1950 – -Malaysian Employment Law Review [MELR] 2012-2013 -Malaysian Labour Law Report [MLLR] 1980 & 1981\ -Malaysian Law Review (Appellate Courts) [MLRA] 2012 – -Malaysian Law Review (High Court) [MLRH] 2012 – -Personal Injury Reports [PIR] 2007 – -Privy Council Cases by, Visu Sinnadurai [PC] -Sessions & Magistrates' Cases [SMC] 2012 – -Shariah Law Reports (LexisNexis) [ShLR] 2004 (Oct) – -Syariah Reports/Laporan Syariah [CLJ(Sya) 2004 – -Straits Settlements Law Report [SSLR] 1877 – 1942 -Supreme Court Reports [SCR] 1988 – 1996

2. List down in alphabetical order all law reports available at the Commonwealth collections. These should include the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and others, (if any). Australia - Australian Company Law Cases [ACLC] 1982-Australian Company Law Reports [ACLR] 1-15 end -Australian Corporations & Securities Reports [ACSCR] 1 -38 -Australian Law Reports [ALR] 1973-Commonwealth Law Reports [CLR] 1903 – -State Reports New South Wales [SR (NSW)] 1901 - 1970 Vol. 1 -72 -New South Wales Law Reports [NSWLR] 1825 – 1900 -New South Wales Law Reports [NSWLR] 1971-New South Wales Weekly Notes [WN] 1884 - 1970 vol. 1-92 -South Australian State Reports [SASR] 1865 – -Victorian Law Reports [VLR] 1846 – England - All England Law Reports [All ER] 1775 – -All England Law Reports Commercial Cases [All ER (Comm.)] 1999-British Company Cases [BCC] 1983 – -Building Law Reports [BLR] Vol 1 – -Butterworths Company Law Cases [BCLC] 1983 – -Butterworths Medico-Legal Reports [BMLR] Vol.1 – -Construction Law Reports [Con. LR] Vol. 1-

Francesca Chin Nyuk Oi 1171100407 (T7) -English Reports [ER] Vol. 1 – 76 -Estates Gazette Law Reports [EGLR] 1985 – 2004 -Family Law Reports [FLR] 1980 – -Fleet Street Reports [FSR] 1966 – -Industrial Cases Report [ICR] 1972 – -Industrial Relations Law Reports [IRLR] 1972 -Law Times [LT] 1859 -1947 -Lloyd's Law Reports [Ll LR] & [Llyod's Rep] 1919 – -Reports of Patent Cases [RPC] 1884-Reports of the Commercial Cases UK from 1895 to 1941 -Revised Reports [RR] Vol. 1 – 149 -Solicitors' Journal [Sol Jo] 1857 – 1996 -The Times 1990 – 2011 -Times Law Reports [TLR] 1884 -1952 -Weekly Law Reports [WLR] 1953-Weekly Notes, England [WN] 1866 – 1952 -Weekly Reporter [WR] 1852-1907 -Law Reports [LR] :-Appeal Cases 1865 - [App Cas] & [AC] -Chancery Division 1865 - [Ch] & [CH D] -Common Pleas 1865 - 1880 [CP] -Equity Vol. 1-20 [1865 - 1875] [Eq] -Exchequer 1865 - 1880 [Ex] -Family Division 1972 - [formerly known as Probate Division] [Fam] -Privy Council Division 1865- 1875 [PC] -Probate Division 1876- 1971 [P] -Queen's Bench & King's Bench Division 1865 - [QB] , [QBD] & [KB] India - AIR Supreme Court Reports 1954 – -All India Reporter [AIR] 1914 – -Criminal Law Journal [Cr.L.J.] 1942 – -Indian Appeals 1836 - 1950 [IA] -Supreme Court Cases 1969 - [SCC] -Supreme Court Reports 1950 - 1996 [SCR] New Zealand - New Zealand Law Report (NZLR) 1883 Singapore - Singapore Law Reports [SLR] 1965 Canada - Dominion Law Reports [DLR] 1st to 4th Series Others Asia Intellectual Property Reports 1993 - 1995 [AIPR] Asia-Pacific Construction Law Reports 1991 – 1992 European Human Rights Report 1979 - 1988 [EHRR] Law Reports of the Commonwealth [LRC] 1980 -

Francesca Chin Nyuk Oi 1171100407 (T7)

3. List down the title, the author(s), the publisher(s) and the year of the publication [latest edition] of the textbooks/references (3 books): For all core subjects of Year 1 of the LLB programme. Legal Method 1 - Introduction to Legal Method, Farrar, John H. and Dugdale, Anthony M (Sweet and Maxwell 1990) - Learning Legal Rules: A Students' Guide to Legal Method and Reasoning, James Holland, Julian Webb, Oxford University Press, 2016 - Legal Method, Skills & Reasoning. Hanson, S. (Cavendish Publishing, 2009) Contract Law 1 - Law of Contract, Visu Sinnadurai, (4th edn LexisNexis Malaysia, Petaling Jaya 2011) - Contract Law in Malaysia, May Fong Cheong, Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2010 - Anson’s Law of Contract, Beatson, J, (29th ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2010) Constitutional Law 1 - Constitutional Landmark in Malaysia - The First 50 Years 1957 – 2007, Andrew Harding and H.P. Lee, (LexisNexis, Singapore 2007) - The Constitution of Malaysia, Vohrah KC Dato et al, Sheridan and Groves, (5th edn Malaysian Law Journal, Kuala Lumpur 2004 - Document of Destiny: Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia, Shad Saleem Faruqi, (Star Publication Malaysia Berhad 2008) Malaysia Legal System - Wu Min Aun, The Malaysian Legal System (3rd edn Pearson and Longman 2009) - Prof. Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim, Ahilemah Joned, Sistem Undang-Undang Di Malaysia, (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka : Kuala Lumpur 1985) - A First Look At The Malaysian Legal System, Wan Arfah Wan Hamzah, OUP South East Asia, 2011

4. Identify names (with proper citations) and the brief facts of cases on: 2 Malaysian cases on The Criminal Procedure Code A. Foo Tseh Wan v Toyota Tsusho (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor In 2015, the First Respondent instituted civil proceedings against the Applicant for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and is claiming damages amounting to RM179,744,989.92. On 14.7.2015, the Applicant made a statement (“the Applicant’s Statement”) pursuant to s. 53(3) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC”). The Applicant was charged with 142 charges under s.18 of MACC and 27 charges under s.4(1)(b) of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (“AMLATFA”). In early 2017, the First Respondent made an application, in the Civil Suit, for the Applicant’s Statement to be used therein (“the 1st Application”). The High Court set 21.2.2017 as the date of the hearing for this application. On the date thereof, the First Respondent withdrew its 1st Application.

Francesca Chin Nyuk Oi 1171100407 (T7) The First Respondent then made an application, in the Criminal Sessions Court in Johor Bahru, for the Applicant’s Statement to be used in the Civil Suit (“the 2nd Application”). However, the First Respondent did not attend the hearing on 20.6.2017, and the learned Sessions Court Judge thereby struck out the application.. On 30.6.2017, the First Respondent filed a Notice of Application to the Criminal Sessions Court in Johor Bahru, again for the Applicant’s Statement to be used in the Civil Suit (“the 3rd Application”). The SCJ allowed the application by the First Respondent on 20.7.2017 B. Tang Ka Wak v Public Prosecutor - [2017] MLJU 2036 Both the appellant and SP2 were fishermen. According to the appellant SP2 had, despite several demands, refused to pay the appellant the sum of RM6000.00 for damaging his fishing net. On the 24 august 2012 the appellant saw SP2 at a coffee shop. There were some verbal exchanges between them. After that the appellant went back to his house nearby to fetch a parang which he claimed he wanted to use merely to frighten SP2. Sp2 on the other hand vehemently denies that he had damaged the appellant’s net. He does not know why he was attacked by the appellant. He however admits that he and the appellant were involved in a verbal altercation before the appellant left the coffee shop and returned with the parang. In mitigation, counsel for the appellant submitted the appellant was 71 years of age. This case had commenced since 2013. Apart from that the appellant had fully cooperated in the investigation. The appellant was not a habitual offender. He has no previous record. Finally, he was concerned that if a long imprisonment sentence was to be imposed the appellant may not be able to be with his family again. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the appellant was to be released his daughter would take care of him. The daughter was present in court throughout the proceedings. Essentially the learned deputy public prosecutor stated in reply that the appellant was not provoked. The offence was a serious one. SP2 had suffered permanent disability and this had affected his livelihood. There was also no proof that SP2 had damaged the appellant’s net. The learned deputy had also submitted that the appellant had taken a parang to injure SP2 and that he should be responsible for his actions. 2 Malaysian cases on the Trustee Act A. Liew Choo & Anor v Million Purpose Properties Sdn Bhd – [2018] LNS 169 The defendant is the sole shareholder in a company called focal elegance sdn bhd (the company). The company is the registered owner of 103 titles of land in the state of perak. By a letter dated 28 december 2016 sent to the defendant by the plaintiffs' solicitor, the plaintiffs' solicitor stated that they were instructed by the first plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to sell the 103 titles for the sum of rm2,000,000. On this basis the plaintiffs had paid the sum of RM20,000.00 representing one percent of the purchase price as earnest money. There were numerous exchanges of correspondences between the parties after this. The plaintiffs later reviewed their offer when it was made known to the plaintiffs that 42 out of the 103 lots were allocated for low cost housing. Because of this the plaintiffs were only prepared to pay the purchase price of RM1,400,000.00.

Francesca Chin Nyuk Oi 1171100407 (T7) Between 9 january 2017 and 20 january 2017 exchanges of letters took place between the plaintiffs and the defendant where the core issue was the bargaining over the purchase price of the shares in the company as well as the 103 titles registered under the company from rm1,800,000.00 "inclusive of GST" offered by the defendant to RM1,500,000.00 "inclusive of GST" offered by the plaintiffs through their solicitors' letter dated 11 january 2017. The plaintiffs' solicitor, on the 20 january 2017, made what they termed as a "final counter offer" of RM1,550,000.00. On this occasion however, there was no mention of the purchase price being inclusive of GST. B. Tekun Nasional v Plenitude Drive (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals - [2018] MLJU 516 The defendant, tabung ekonomi kumpulan usaha niaga (tekun) nasional, is an agency under the ministry of agriculture & agro-based industry. It approves and disburses loan and collects repayment of these loans. At the material time, the defendant had approximately 300,000 borrowers. The collection of monies from borrowers had been done manually. The defendant’s officers physically collect loan repayments from borrowers and physically issue receipts. This process was prone to abuse. The monies collected by the defendant’s officers may not be recorded in time or at all and the defendant’s record of repayment through the computer system may not be updated. To overcome the abuse, the plaintiff proposed to the defendant that collection of repayment be done via a device called the mobile gadget and a system of auto debit of borrowers’ bank account, called the standing instruction system. The plaintiff’s proposals were made through two letters dated 3.7.2014 and 12.8.2014 respectively. The mobile gadget is a hand held device which is linked to the defendant’s computer system. The defendant’s officers responsible for the collection would take the mobile gadget along during collection of monies. The borrower has the option of paying by cash, cheque, credit card or debit card. Any payment information which is keyed in or obtained by swiping the payment card through the mobile gadget will be updated real time in the defendant’s computer system. The mobile gadget will electronically issue a receipt and a short message service will be sent to the borrower to confirm the transaction. This would reduce the chances of misappropriation of the monies collected and the risk of undetected misappropriation. As for the standing instruction system, the defendant’s borrowers would sign up with the bank and their accounts would be automatically debited and credited into the defendant’s account. 2 Cases on Duty of Care under Law of Tort A. Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors [2006]2 MLJ 389 The highland towers consisted of three blocks of apartment known as blocks 1, 2 and 3 situated on lots 494, 495 and 635 mukim, hulu klang. These apartment blocks were built in front of a steep slope. The hill slope was originally owned by highland properties sdn. Bhd., The developer who also developed highland towers. Highland properties initially intended to construct three apartment blocks on the highland towers site and bungalows on the hill slope. Ultimately, only the three apartment blocks were built. This was between 1975 and 1978. No bungalows were constructed on the hill slope.

Francesca Chin Nyuk Oi 1171100407 (T7) In 1991, highland properties transferred ownership of the bungalow lots on the hill slope to arab malaysian finance bhd (amfb) as part of a set-off for unpaid loans. On the hill slope was a stream which was referred to at the trial as the "east stream". The east stream originated from land that was being developed by metrolux sdn. Bhd. And MBF property services sdn. Bhd. This land was referred to as the "metrolux land". On 11 december 1993, a landslide occurred resulting in the collapse of block 1 and the subsequent evacuation of the respondents from blocks 2 and 3. The respondents then filed a suit in the high court against various parties including MPAJ, the appellant herein, for negligence and nuisance. After a lengthy hearing, the learned trial judge found the appellant who was the 4th defendant in the case to be 15% liable for negligence in respect of the appellant's acts and omissions prior to the collapse of block 1 of the highland towers. However, he held that s. 95(2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) operated to indemnify the appellant of any pre-collapse liability but provided no protection to the appellant for post-collapse liability. Dissatisfied, both the appellant and respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal on post-collapse liability. They also allowed the cross-appeal by the respondents against the order of the High Court on the indemnity issue under s. 95(2). Against that decision, the appellant and the respondents have lodged their appeal and cross-appeal respectively. B. Bodibasixs Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v Entogenex Industries Sdn Bhd - [2018] 1 LNS 569 The defendant was contracted to supply mosquito repellent in connection with a program sponsored by the malaysian ministry of science, technology and innovation. This program involved the distribution of 100,000 dengue control kits. The defendant possessed the know-how relating to the use of an extract from the wild tomato plant as a non-toxic insect repellent, and had engaged the plaintiff to manufacture a mosquito repellent lotion that was to be included in such kits. The parties commenced discussions in 2012. They entered into two agreements: a mutual nondisclosure agreement on 6 june 2012 and materials transfer agreement on 11 june 2012. These agreements were intended to (among others) preserve the confidentiality of proprietary information and materials that to be transferred between the parties. These agreements do not, however, govern any of the matters in dispute between the parties. The goods had been provided pursuant to two quotations dated 25 February 2015 and 27 November 2015. Under the contractual terms of the sale and purchase of the goods, any complaint from the defendant as the purchaser must be lodged within seven days of receipt of delivery of the goods. Although no such complaint was made by the defendant, the defendant nonetheless contended that it was entitled to raise the counterclaim, for the fact that the counterclaim was not premised on the contract of purchase, but rather premised in tort. After having been supplied with the mosquito repellent that had been manufactured by the plaintiff, the defendant was summoned by the Pesticides Board regarding the inclusion of methylisothiazolinone (referred to here as "MIT ") and rosemary oil in the repellent lotion (which was known as Denguard Dengue Defence Lotion). These two compounds are listed in the First Schedule to the Pesticides Act 1974 and required registration for inclusion into any consumer product. No such registration had been obtained. Furthermore, the inclusion of these compounds would have been

Francesca Chin Nyuk Oi 1171100407 (T7) contrary to the defendant's own claim that the Denguard lotion contained only natural and non-toxic substances. As events turned out, MIT had not been included in the ingredients of the Denguard lotion after all. The containers had been mislabelled. The defendant incurred additional production costs for the reprinting of additional labels for the products that were packaged in 100ml tubes. It was advanced in submissions by counsel for the defendant that the mislabelling of the tubes was the result of the plaintiff's negligence. 2 Court of Appeal Cases on Family law A. Sreedevi Naidu T Sree Ramalu Naidu v Eelasegeran T Nadarajah & Anor - [2016] 6 CLJ 538 The marriage of the petitioner wife and the first respondent husband was registered on 29 june 2010. During the marriage, the first respondent husband who was an employee of petronas resided for the most part in uzbekistan whilst the petitioner wife resided in malaysia ...