Messrs R. Jayabalan

26/07/2025

15/05/2025

https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2025/05/1215988/woman-wins-rm400k-suit-over-botched-hysterectomy-govt-hospital #

26/07/2024

The Ang Ming Lee Saga Ends.

Re late delivery LAD claims by house purchasers against housing developers.

Ever since the Federal Court decision in Ang Ming Lee in 2020, the issue that kept repeating itself was whether the decision was to be of prospective or retrospective effect.

The primary view, and followed by the courts, was that any court decision is of retrospective effect unless directed otherwise viz. expressly directed to be of prospective effect only. In Ang Ming Lee the Federal Court did not make such specific direction of prospective effect, hence the decision was treated as of retrospective effect - following the general law.

This then opened the door for purchasers whose SPA and LAD claim accrued before Ang Ming Lee to also take advantage of the Ang Ming Lee decision. Many of them did, and successfully.

The complaint that followed was that Ang Ming Lee, with retrospective effect, allowed purchasers to attempt and receive a windfall in terms of LAD, hence grossly unfair to developers who had followed the law as it was at the time of the SPA, and as such the decision with retrospective effect badly affected the housing industry.

Well, everything good must come to an end.

The Federal Court has now decided that Ang Ming Lee in view of it's special circumstances, effect and statutory implications ought not be read as of retrospective effect, and must be applied as of prospective effect.

In short, LAD claims accruing before Ang Ming Lee cannot take advantage of the Ang Ming Lee effect. Done. Dusted.

06/04/2024

PREPARING WITNESS STATEMENT

22/03/2024

CLAIMS FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL

The Court of Appeal recently in Melipoly Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Ong Hong Yeok (February 2024) once again clarified the legal position on two main issues in claims before the Industrial Court.

It was held that when resisting a claim for unfair dismissal the employer may only rely on the grounds given in the notice of termination; the Court may only inquire into the reasons stated in the notice and not to consider other reasons advanced at the trial by the employer.

Secondly, it was held that the Industrial Court may proceed to hear an unfair dismissal claim even when the claimant has rejected the relief of reinstatement at the trial as the Court's jurisdiction is derived from the Minister's reference under a. 20(3) of the Act and the jurisdiction is not dependant on whether the Claimant wants his job back.

Our commentary on the decision is at the link below.

19/02/2024

Come and join us at the:
Johore Bar Chinese Open House - 20.2.2024
Annual Dinner -24.2.2024

14/02/2024

Cause papers for matrimonial proceedings maybe filed in English (only) without Bahasa Malaysia translation. Federal Court decision and grounds

CAUSE PAPERS IN MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS MAYBE FILED IN ENGLISH (ONLY) WITHOUT BAHASA MALAYSIA TRANSLATION. The language point. The Federal Court recently…

03/02/2024

Webinar. Open for registration.

02/01/2024

In Muar today. In JB on Thursday.

31/12/2023

Happy New Year

29/12/2023

https://www.facebook.com/100064493777885/posts/741424758017310/?mibextid=Nif5oz

Circular No 374/2023 | Practising Without a Practising Certificate after 31 Dec 2023

Click here (https://bit.ly/3tyXNmW) to view the full circular on our website.

05/12/2023

Dealing with DB complaints?