Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retrospectivity of legislation

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2021

MUDAJAYA CORPORATION SDN BHD LEMBAGA GETAH MALAYSIA DAN 2 LAGI

Citation

WA-24C-56-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-56-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held s.30 CIPAA was inapplicable because the relevant principal contract (the PDP Agreement) predated the commencement of CIPAA and the right to compel direct payment under s.30 affects substantive contractual rights; applying s.30 retrospectively would impair those rights, therefore inapplicability of CIPAA is a complete defence and the originating summons is dismissed.
15 Jan 2021

TEN JING ENTERPRISE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 943955-A) 1. ) HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD 2. ) ENGKU HANIF BIN ENGKU ISMAIL 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-21NCVC-81-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCVC-81-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 52A of AMLATFA (effective 1.9.2014) does not operate retrospectively; the seizure order dated 1.4.2013 remained in force until varied or revoked and Defendant First breached its statutory duty under s50(1) by remitting RM1,270,262.15 to the Insolvency Department; Defendants 2–4 are protected by statutory immunity under s77; accordingly Plaintiff's Order under Order 14A succeeds without full trial.
Tribunal for Homebuyers Claims vs Westcourt Corporation Sdn Bhd

Citation

Tribunal for Homebuyers Claims vs Westcourt Corporation Sdn Bhd
Court

Malaysian court

The Court held that s.16N(2) limits jurisdiction by reference to the cause of action and statutory time-limits (certificate of fitness or defects liability expiry) and does not impose a cut-off by date of the sale and purchase agreement; s.16AD penalizes only post-establishment failure to comply with Tribunal awards and does not criminalize past breaches, so the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims based on agreements entered into before 1 December 2002; the Amending Act must be construed purposively as social legislation.
Tribunal 6 Sep 2004

Citation

Tribunal 6 Sep 2004
Court

Malaysian court

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims arising from sale and purchase agreements entered into before 1 December 2002 provided the claim satisfies s.16N(2) (i.e. cause of action from the agreement and brought within the statutory time limits); the change of forum is procedural and may operate retrospectively; section 16AD does not criminalize past breaches of agreements but only prospective failure to comply with awards issued after the Tribunal's establishment and therefore does not violate Article 7.
Puncakdana Sdn Bhd vs Tribunal for Homebuyers Claims

Citation

Puncakdana Sdn Bhd vs Tribunal for Homebuyers Claims
Court

Malaysian court

Part VI of the Amendment Act (which established the Tribunal) does not operate retrospectively; there is no clear statutory language conferring retrospective jurisdiction and applying Part VI to agreements entered before 1 December 2002 would affect substantive rights and expose developers to retrospective criminal liability under s16AD, contrary to the presumption against retrospectivity and Article 7; therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over sale and purchase agreements entered before 1 December 2002.

Malaysia Case Law

MUDAJAYA CORPORATION SDN BHD LEMBAGA GETAH MALAYSIA DAN 2 LAGI

TEN JING ENTERPRISE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 943955-A) 1. ) HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD 2. ) ENGKU HANIF BIN ENGKU ISMAIL 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Tribunal for Homebuyers Claims vs Westcourt Corporation Sdn Bhd

Tribunal 6 Sep 2004

Puncakdana Sdn Bhd vs Tribunal for Homebuyers Claims