INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 26(18)/4-2404/2004 BETWEEN SYARIKAT MALAYSIA WOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD AND KANAPADDY GOPAL AWARD NO: 897 OF 2009

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 26(18)/4-2404/2004 BETWEEN SYARIKAT MALAYSIA WOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD AND KANAPADDY GOPAL AWARD NO: 897 OF 2009"

Transcription

1 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 26(18)/4-2404/2004 BETWEEN SYARIKAT MALAYSIA WOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD AND KANAPADDY GOPAL AWARD NO: 897 OF 2009 Before Venue : AHMAD TERRIRUDIN BIN MOHD SALLEH CHAIRMAN (Sitting Alone) : Industrial Court Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Date of Reference : Dates of Mention : , , , , & Dates of Hearing : & Representation : For the Claimant - S Sureiander; M/s S Sureiander & Associates For the Company - Shalani Devi; Persekutuan Majikan Majikan Malaysia 1

2 Reference: The reference of the Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia is regarding the dismissal of Encik Kanapaddy a/l Gopal ( the claimants ) by Syarikat Malaysia Wood Industries Sdn Bhd ( the company ) on 27 June AWARD (NO. 897 OF 2009) The parties to the dispute are Kanapaddy A/L Gopal ( the claimant ) and Syarikat Malaysia Wood Industries Sdn Bhd ( the company ). The dispute between the parties arose out of the dismissal of the claimant by the company on 27 June Brief Facts of The Case The claimant joined the company as a General Worker on 15 February However, vide a letter dated 10 June 2002 the claimant was suspended from employment with half pay and was asked to attend a Domestic Inquiry (DI) in respect of four misconducts alleged to have been committed by the claimant on 6 June The said alleged misconducts are as follows (page 10 of COB): 2

3 l0hb Jun 2002 Nama : Kanapaaddy a/l Gopal, Index no : 490 Seksyen : LP Rough-Mill Encik Kanapaddy, PER: PENGANTUNGAN KERJA Anda telah di tuduh melakukan kesalahan-kesalahan seperti berikut pada jam lebih kurang 3-00 petang. 1. Memandu forklift secara laju dan merbahaya menyebabkan berlakunya pergaduhan dan bertumbuk dengan rakan sekerja anda. 2. Bergaduh dan bertumbuk dalam kawasan kilang. 3. Enggan menerima arahan yang diberi mengikut dengan kepentingan disiplin dan kemudian berkelakuan yang berkemungkinan membahayakan nyawa atau keselamatan seseorang. 4. Mengugut untuk membunuh rakan sekerja dan pekerja kilang. Olih kerana perbuatan tersebut diatas adalah salah di segi undang-undang dan peraturan syarikat, anda di kehendaki memberi sebab-sebab secara bertulis mengapa tindakan tatatertib tidak bolih diambil terhadap anda selewatnya empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh surat ini di keluarkan. Dengan ini juga dimaklumkan bahawa perkhidmatan anda adalah digantung dengan separuh gaji mulai sehingga untuk tujuan diatas. Anda selanjutnya di kehendaki datang untuk perbicaraan dalaman iaitu Domestic Enquiry di pejabat ini pada jam 9.30 pagi. Sekian, harap maklum. 3

4 Yang benar, FOR SYARIKAT MALAYSIA WOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BERHAD sila akui penerimaan surat ini t.t... t.t PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT s.k. Fail no : 490 SL Lee.. Kanapaddy a/l Gopal Ind no: 490 Lp R/Mill Vide a letter dated 26 June 2002 the claimant s employment was terminated effective from 27 June The Issues The issues for determination before this court are as follows: (a) (b) Whether the company had proved its case against the claimant on the charges for which it charged the claimant; and Whether the dismissal of the claimant was with just cause or excuse. 4

5 The Law In Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd [1981] 2 MLJ 129, Raja Azlan Shah G (Malaya) (as he then was), at page 136, laid down the following principle: Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial Court for inquiry, it is the duty of the court to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to give a reason for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial Court will be to enquire whether the excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been proved, then the inevitable conclusion must be that the termination or dismissal was without cause or excuse. The proper enquiry of the court is to reason advanced by it and that court or the High Court cannot go into another reason not relied on by the employer or find one for it.. The above principle was followed in the case of Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong She Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449. The burden of proof to justify dismissal lies on the employer for he knows why he in fact dismissed the employee (see: Union Construction Allied Trades Technicians v. Brain [1981] 1 ILR 224). The employee must prove 5

6 the employee guilty, and it is not the employee who must prove himself not guilty (see: Stamford Executive Centre v. Puan Dharsini Ganeson [1986] 1 ILR 101 (Award No. 263 of 1985). To discharge his burden of proof, the employer must adduce cogent and convincing evidence, whether oral or documentary, to prove the facts and circumstances which he contends just cause or excuse for dismissing the employer. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities (see: Blue Apparels (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Vickneswaran Ramanathan [1997] 3 ILR 803 (Award No. 552 of 1997). The legal position here is also well-stated as per Halsbury s Laws of Malaysia, vol. 7 at pp , as follows: The burden of proving that the dismissal of a workman is with just cause or excuse is on the employer. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The employer must convince the Court that the punishment was proportionate to the nature and quality of the alleged wrongdoing... The following reasons can constitute just cause or excuse for dismissal: (1) (2) (3) misconduct by the employee; (4) 6

7 misconduct connotes to conduct that is inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of service. Some examples of types of misconduct are..., wilfully disobeying lawful and reasonable orders or precedents,... unprofessional conduct and breach of company policy..., using violence on superior or coemployee... Misconduct refers to conduct so seriously in breach of the accepted practice that, by standards of fairness and justice, the employer should not be bound to continue the employment (see Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Sdn. Bhd. v. Transport Workers Union[1990] 1 MLJ 5). Company s Case The Company called 8 witnesses. COW1 is Ong Pooy Mooi who was the Human Resource Officer at the material time. She testified through her witness statement (COWS-1) that after conducting the investigation the company suspended the claimant and one Chua Chin Huat (COW5). In this incident, COW1 said that COW5 was only charged for fighting in the factory premise and the claimant was charged with 4 charges as stated in page 10 of COB. Mohd Hassan b. Rejab is COW2. As in his witness statement (COWS-2), COW2 said as a glue supplier to the company he knew the claimant and was at the factory about 3 to 4 times a week. He further stated that he knew about the misunderstanding between the claimant and COW5. On that day he said while he was in the production 7

8 area suddenly he heard a loud noise from the forklift and when he turned to his left he saw fire sparks caused by the fork being dropped from the said forklift. He further said that the forklift which was driven by the claimant was following COW5 from the back and after overtaking COW5 the forklift at a high speed left the place and the distance between the claimant and COW5 at that time was about 5 ft. Then, he said COW5 came to see him and complained about the conduct of the claimant. COW2 clarified that the forklift was following COW5 for about 10 ft with its fork grazing the floor. COW3 is Ragunathan a/l Rengasamy who was the technician of the company stated in his witness statement (COWS-3) that on 6 June 2002 at about 2.45 pm he suddenly heard somebody was shouting that there was a fight in the Production Floor (Block D) and he saw the Operation Manager one Lee Soo Lee (COW6) near the workshop was asking for his help to stop the fight. He then said upon seeing the fighting between the claimant and COW5 he pulled COW5 to the workshop and later he knew that COW6 pulled the claimant to the shelter side of Block D. According to him a few minutes later he saw the claimant was holding a long piece of solid iron and walking towards COW5. He further stated that he ran towards the claimant and upon seeing that the claimant was holding 2 ft long planner knife he snatched the knife from him and tried to calm him down. The company s fourth witness is Zurimi bin Abd Hadi (COW4) through his witness statement (COWS-4) supported the evidence of COW2 and further stated that about 30 ft from where he was standing he saw the claimant was talking to COW5 and saw the claimant went into the production and came out angrily with a cutter measuring 8

9 about 2 ft long and was going towards the Maintenance area. After that he saw COW3 was trying to stop the claimant. COW5 who was the Maintenance Supervisor at the material time in his witness statement (COWS-5) related his version of the incident on 6 June 2002 that at about 2.45 pm after repairing the machines in Block D Lamination Line he walked to the workshop in the maintenance section. He further stated that he approached COW2 and at that time he claimed that the claimant was driving the forklift at a high speed and in a dangerous manner. COW5 further claimed that the claimant drove the forklift close to him and dropped the fork to the ground causing sparks and loud grinding sound that startled the other workers. He alleged that he was shocked and frightened. COW5 then proceeded to the workshop and telephone COW6 to inform him about the incident. After that COW5 said he went back to Laminating Line to collect his test pen and on his back to the work he alleged the claimant who was driving the forklift reversed and blocked his path. He further alleged that the claimant refused to move his vehicle to let him pass through. COW5 waited for the claimant to move but instead he said the claimant looked at him angrily. The claimant also he said stared at him and showed his leg and wanted to kick him. As such, COW5 said he pulled the claimant leg and there was a scuffle between them. The claimant according to COW5 jumped from the forklift and tried to strangle him but he managed to free himself. Upon freeing himself, the claimant said he hurriedly walked to the workshop but suddenly he saw the claimant was pulling a piece of wood from a rejected tied bundle. COW5 said he was frightened that the claimant was going to hit him with it so he rushed 9

10 towards him and tried to take it away and at the time they were grappling with each other. He agreed that at that time COW6 and COW3 came to the scene and separated them but a few moments later he saw the claimant with a 2 ft long planner knife was heading towards him and at the same time was shouting Chua you keluar, saya mahu bunuh hang.. In his witness statement COW5 agreed that COW3 ran towards the claimant and snatched the knife from hand of the claimant. COW6 in his witness statement (COWS-6) confirmed that on the day of the incident he received a phone call from COW5 informing that the claimant was driving the forklift at a fast speed and also dangerously as if the claimant had the intention to injure him. After the phone call COW6 then said he went down to Block D which is in the Production area and while he was walking he said another employee a production supervisor yelled that there was a fight at the back of the production floor. COW6 said he went to the scene of the commotion and saw the claimant was fighting with COW5. Then COW6 yelled and called COW5 to help him to stop the fight: by pulling the claimant to the shelter next to the tank while COW5 was pulled by COW3 to the maintenance sector. However, he said when he pulled the claimant he shouted angrily and told that he was punched by COW5. The claimant also told COW5 thought he purposely blocked his way but actually because the forklift has three gears so it will take sometime to move and he has to press the pedal hard before the forklift could move. In his witness statement also COW6 did mention that the claimant at: that time also uttered that this time he will not settle the problem between them and he yelled that one of them have to die. After that while he was on his way to 10

11 talk to COW5 at the maintenance department, COW6 heard someone was screaming Kana datang dengan pisau and when turned he saw the claimant was walking towards the maintenance office holding a 2ft planner knife. However, COW6 confirmed that the claimant did not attack COW5 but while walking towards COW5 the claimant shouted Chua keluar sekarang sebab saya nak bunuh awak. Then COW6 stated that he pushed the claimant away while COW3 snatched the planner knife from the hand of the claimant. While pulling the claimant to Block D COW6 alleged that the claimant continue to scream that he will kill COW5 today. He also said that he will wait for COW5 until 4.30 pm. Even after the commotion, COW6 claimed that the claimant reminded him of the coke bottle story where COW6 said two weeks ago the claimant told him that he could stab COW5 with a broken Coke bottle anytime and there are 5 ways he could kill the claimant. Lim Eng Guan (COW7) who was the claimant s colleague in his with witness statement (COWS-7) confirmed that on 6 June 2002 there was a fight between COW5 and the claimant and he also saw COW6 was trying separate them to stop the fighting. He further stated that after COW5 went back to the workshop he saw the claimant suddenly came to the outside of the workshop with a knife and at that time the claimant was shouting for COW5 to come back. COW7 then asked COW5 not to come out from the room. COW8 is the Cheng Eng was the Senior Technician at the material time. In his witness statement (COWS-8) he claimed that when the incident took place he was in his workshop. He further stated that he heard a noise and shouts so he went out and saw the claimant 11

12 standing with COW5. He further explained that at the material time the claimant was shouting loudly and was holding a blade about 2 ft in length. In her written submission, representative for the company submits that the claimant gave false evidence and there were also inconsistencies in his evidence especially the evidence in the court and his reply to the show cause letter. It was further submitted that the claimant did admit in court that his reply letter to the show cause after the incident is the correct version. Claimant s Case In this case, the claimant had another witness that is Murugiah a/l Kuppu. In his written witness statement (CLWS-1), he said that at the material time he was the forklift driver for the company. He further stated that on the day of incident he was not working but he said generally the speed of the said forklift in the factory is about 5 km/ph. He denied that the fork of the forklift can be dropped suddenly. This is because it uses hydraulic system. It is also in his witness statement that the said forklift produced loud engine sound. This is because since the forklift is heavy you have to press hard the oil. In his witness statement (CLWS-2), the claimant testified that with regard to the first charge he denied that he was driving the forklift at a high 12

13 speed. This is because at the material time the forklift was carrying 4 tons of weight and cannot be driven fast. He further explained that the maximum speed of the forklift was about 10 km/ph only and the forklift path was also used by the employees of the company. The path is also narrow with things of both sides. Pertaining to the dangerous driving, the claimant said the forklift s brake was not so effective and in order to stop or to slow the forklift it is normal to drop the fork of the forklift and this will produce a loud sound. He further said that the forklift did not have any horn. According to the claimant to move the forklift you will need to press hard the oil and this will produce a loud sound. This is because the forklift was heavy. On the day of the incident, the claimant admitted that he dropped the fork of the forklift to slow down the forklift because he saw COW5 was entering into his path and to give him warning that he was coming from his back. The claimant denied that he did intend to surprise COW5 or even to cause panic to him. At that time he said that the speed of the forklift was about 5 km/ph and he also did not agree that the fork of the forklift can be dropped suddenly. This is because the fork can only be dropped slowly using hydraulic system and generally when the forklift is driven the said fork will be dropped nearing to the floor. As for the second charge, the claimant said at the material time he was driving the forklift on the reverse side and while he was looking back he saw COW5 suddenly appeared so he stopped the forklift immediately and gave way to him. However, the claimant claimed that COW5 suddenly came to him and punched and pulled him from the forklift, As a result, the 13

14 claimant claimed that when he was about to fall down from the forklift he had to hold on to COW5 and during this scuffle he was kicked, punched and stepped by him. The claimant admitted that for self defence purposes during the scuffle he did punch COW5. The claimant did not agree that he took a piece of wood to hit COW5. He claimed that at the time a woman employee by the name of Haslinda did witness the said incident. As for the third charge, his version in his witness statement was that after the fight was separated by COW6 and COW3 he was brought near to the water tank where he had his drink and sat there for about 15 minutes. After the situation back to normal the claimant said he returned to his forklift to continue his work but he found out that the p l a n n e r k n i f e t h a t w a s used to cut the rope for the bundle was missing from the forklift so he went to take the planner knife and returned to his forklift. However, on his way back to his forklift COW3 came to him and hold him. At that time he said COW6 uttered the word relax to him and COW3 took the knife from him. The claimant alleged that he did not resist when COW3 took the knife from him except to request COW3 to let him go. At that time also he realised that they thought that he took the knife to threat COW5. The claimant in his witness statement denied that he did intend to kill or to cause hurt to COW5. To support his contention, the claimant said at that time he does not know the whereabout of COW5.The claimant also alleged that the said incident was planned earlier. This is because he was puzzled with the presence of COW6 during the fighting. Further, according to him COW6 had threatened to sack him few times. The claimant strongly 14

15 denied that he said he will stab COWS with the coke bottle, This is because the said coke bottle was a plastic bottle and it is not logic to stab someone with a plastic bottle. In his submission, counsel for the claimant submits that there is no direct evidence to support that the claimant at the material time was the driving the forklift in a dangerous manner. This is because both COW2 and COW5 did not see how the claimant drove the said forklift and they only heard the sound of the fork being dropped from the forklift. As for the second charge, the counsel submits that the claimant was acting in self defence and COW5 in his evidence did a d mi t t h a t h e started the fight. The counsel also urged the court to incoke section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against the company for not calling Haslinda. This is because the claimant alleged that she witness she said incident but the company did not produce her in court. Regarding the third charge, it is the submission by the counsel for the claimant that if it is true that the claimant did try to kill COW5 why did surrender the planner knife without any resistance? The counsel also did not agree that the claimant had threatened to kill COW5 since COW3 s evidence is doubtful. This because at first during cross-examination COW3 agreed that the claimant did not utter those words when he took the knife from him but in re-examination he changed his mind and confirmed that the claimant did try to kill COW5. 15

16 Evaluation and Findings The court will now deal the each of the charge. Charge No. 1 The misconduct in this charge centers around the alleged speeding and dangerous driving of the forklift by the claimant. After perusing the evidence as a whole and testimonies of the witnesses in particular COW5, COW2 and COW4, the court finds that on the balance of probabilities the company has proved that the claimant did commit the said misconduct. This is because firstly, the evidence of COW5 is corroborated by COW2 and COW4 who saw what actually happened. Secondly, the court finds that their written testimonies regarding the incident are convincing, consistent and not contradicting with each other. Therefore, the court accepts that the company s version that is on the day of the incident the claimant was driving the forklift at a high speed in a dangerous manner, This is because the claimant drove the forklift closed to COW5 and dropped the fork which caused fire spark and loud grinding sound. Further, from the evidence it is also stated that that after overtaking COW5 the claimant drove the forklift at a high speed. Thirdly, the court believes the evidence of COW2 since at the material time he was not the employee of the company he was an independent witness. In court s view he has no vested interest in this matter. There is no reason for him to lie. Fourthly, the court finds that the claimant had not succeeded in refuting the company s evidence. The claimant did not deny that on that day in question he drove the said 16

17 forklift. Although the claimant claimed that the fork was dropped because to warn COW5 since the forklift did not have any horn but at the same time the claimant also said the forklift produced a loud engine sound. As such, the court agrees with the representative of the company that if the engine of the forklift is loud there is no reason for the claimant to further drop the fork to warn COW5. To further support this finding, the court also finds that the claimant during cross-examination agreed that the forklift did produce a loud engine sound. The court also accepts that the claimant did intend to harm the COW5 because COW2 said after the claimant overtook COW5 the fork was pushed up. Fifthly, in this case also, it is difficult to believe the claimant s testimony because in his written reply to the show cause (pages 11 and 12 of COB) he said he dropped the fork the alert COW5 but during cross-examination twice he denied that the fork was dropped to warn COW5. Once again, based on the above, the court on the balance of probabilities finds the company has proved the fact that claimant did drive the forklift at a high speed and in a dangerous manner. Charges No: 2, 3 and 4 As for this charge it is pertinent to note that it falls upon the court to inquire into all aspects of the fight. In Steelform Industries Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v. Foo Fook Ban [1991] 1 ILR 442 (Award No. 127 of 1991) the learned chairman observed: 17

18 Material facts and relevant evidence in any case of assault or fighting should include the causes, reasons and motives that led to the fight to determine the various degrees of culpability of the persons involved in the fight, and if there is any justification to exonerate the innocent victim.. In this case, after evaluating both the evidence of the company through the evidence of COW 5, 6 and COW 3 and the evidence of the claimant, on the balance of probability, this court finds it difficult to accept that COW 2 and COW 6 would concoct a story to frame up the claimant. This is because, COW6 and COW2 did not play any part in the fight and both of them in their written statements consistently said they saw the fight and were there to separate COW5 and the claimant. Now the question is, who started the fight? The court notes that none of the other witnesses actually saw how the incident started and they only came into the picture after the fight had actually started. As such, it is from the two different versions that the court will have to decipher the truth of the story. In this regard, the court after scrutinizing thoroughly the evidence of the both parties doubts the evidence of the claimant. This is because in his written statement evidence he said while driving the forklift on the reverse side he saw COW5 so he immediately stop his vehicle to give way to COW5 but C O W 5 immediately came and punched him. However in his written reply to the show cause letter the claimant did not mention about stopping the forklift to give way to COW5. The court also finds that it is not logic to claim that COW5 punched the claimant on the forehead. This is because if 18

19 it is true that the claimant stopped the forklift to give way to COW5 surely he had COW5 in his full view and would seen the COW5 s action or conduct. It is the opinion of the court also that even if the claimant claimed that COW5 did strike a blow on his forehead his immediate reaction at the material time was to avoid the alleged punched since he had COW5 in his view. Further, in his written evidence the claimant said the punched had caused him to fall down from the forklift but in his reply to the show cause letter he wrote that after being punched by COW5 he alighted from the forklift. Based on the above, it is the finding of this court that the above discrepancies in the claimant s testimony are major and the court is satisfied that the claimant is not a truthful witness. As such his evidence has to be treated with great caution. On the other hand, the court finds that the written evidence of COW5 is consistent with his statement given during the investigation carried out by the company (page 5 of COB). Further, it is relevant to note that this written statement was given soon after the incident so the chances of fabrication is minimal. In this case also the claimant s counsel also submits that Haslinda should be called by the company as a witness to prove that it was not the claimant who started the fight. The counsel for the claimant cited section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act 1950 to be drawn an adverse inference against the company. In court s view the presence of Haslinda could only testify to 19

20 the same facts which had been sufficiently established by the company s evidence. Regarding the presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, textbook Evidence - Practice and Procedure, 2nd. Edition by Augustine Paul where the learned author has stated at p. 785 as follows: The presumption will not arise for not calling a witness if there is sufficient other evidence in support of the prosecution. There is also no question of withholding or suppression of material evidence by the company to attract an adverse inference to be drawn. In this regard Seah SCJ in the Supreme Court case of Munusamy v. Public Prosecutor [1987] CLJ 221 (Rep); [1987] 1 CLJ 250; [1987] 1 MLJ 492 held:- It is essential to appreciate the scope of section 114(g) lest it be carried too far outside its limit. Adverse inference under that illustration can only be drawn if there is withholding or suppression of evidence and not merely on account of failure to obtain evidence. It may be drawn from withholding not just any document, but material document by a party in his possession, or for non-production of not just any witness but an important and material witness to the case. In Sarkar s Law of Evidence 15th Edition 1999 at pa. 1678, it is stated:- 20

21 If a party in possession of the best evidence which would throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him. [National Insurance Co, Lid v. Kusum Devi Mishra, 1998 AIHC 3751, 3753]. (see also: Bax Global (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Saravanan Rajagopal [2007] 3 ILR 434 (Award No of 2007)) In EON Bank Bhd. v. Hotel Flamingo Sdn Bhd [2005] 5 CLJ 253 at p. 259, Y.A. Low Hop Bing J stated the following on the onus of proof :- On the other hand, the onus of proof relates to the responsibility of adducing evidence in order to discharge the burden of proof. The onus as opposed to burden is not stable and constantly shifts during the trial from one side to the other according to the scale of evidence and other preponderates. Such shifting is one continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. According to ss. 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, if the party with whom the onus lies whether initially or Subsequently as a result of its shifting does not give any or further evidence or gives evidence which is not sufficient, such party must fail: per Salleh Abas FJ. (later LP) in delivering the judgment of the Federal Court in International Times, supra at p

22 (see also: International Times & Ors v. Leong Ho Yuen [1980] 2 MLJ. 86 FC) In this case it may be observed that since the claimant has denied that all the allegation being put forward by the company against him the onus is on him to give any or further evidence or give evidence which is not sufficient. Therefore, if at all an adverse inference under section 114(g) is to be drawn, it indeed works against the claimant. Notwithstanding this, this Court as a Court of arbitration 1 will abide by the principle laid down by the Court of Appeal in Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty a/l Sanguni Nair & Anor [2002] 3 MLJ 129 where it was held, inter alia:- Held. (1) The Industrial Court should not be burdened with the technicalities regarding the standard of proof, the rules of evidence and procedure that are applied in the court of law. The Industrial Court should be allowed to conduct its proceeding as a court of arbitration, and be more flexible in arriving at its decision, so long as it gives special regard to substantiate merits and decide a case in accordance with equity and good conscience. Based on the abovementioned of the evidence adduced the court is of the view that the company on the balance of probabilities had succeeded in proving the 2 nd charge against the claimant. 22

23 As regards to the charges no.3 and 4, the claimant claimed that after the scuffle he did seat at the place he was brought to and came back to work only after 15 minutes. Pertaining to the planner knife the claimant told the court that after returning to the forklift he found out that the planner knife which he normally used to cut the rope for the bundle was not there so he went to the place where the said knife was normally kept and took. However, he claimed that on the way back to his forklift COW3 came to him and took the knife and he did not resist. The court after carefully weighing the evidence tendered in this case finds that claimant s version cannot be the truth. This is because the court notes that COW2 and COW7 who were not involved in the incident also consistently agreed with COW3 and COW6 said they saw the claimant walking towards the maintenance office holding a 2 ft long planner knife and shouted at COW5 to come out from his workshop. As such, the court finds that the claimant had disobeyed the instruction given by COW6 and went to commit the threatening conduct against his fellow worker. Thus, in light of the above the court finds on the balance of probabilities that the third and fourth charges against the claimant are also proven. The next issue to consider is whether the claimant s dismissal was with or without just cause or excuse. The court is also of the view that an assault on a fellow employee is a serious misconduct. In Cik Tan Swee Gek v. FE Zuellig (M) Sdn Bhd [1980] MLLR 329 the court said as follows: 23

24 There are a number of decided cases which held that a single incident of on offence of assault could justify a harsh penalty of dismissal. In Fermlinson v. L.M.S. Rhy [1944] 1. All ER 537, the Court of Appeal held that the employer was justified in dismissing a worker summarily for assaulting a fellow worker. The court further finds that the company was no longer repose the necessary trust and confidence in the claimant to carry out his duties and responsibilities in a faithful and diligent manner with the company. For the above considerations, this court holds that the company had dismissed the claimant with just cause and excused. Accordingly, the claimant s claim is dismissed. HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 23 JULY 2009 (AHMAD TERRIRMDIN BIN MOHD SALLEH) CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL COURT 24

THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 5/4-1546/05 BETWEEN ENCIK SAIFUL NAFIS BIN SHARIFF AND AIRASIA SDN BHD AWARD NO: 2239 OF 2007

THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 5/4-1546/05 BETWEEN ENCIK SAIFUL NAFIS BIN SHARIFF AND AIRASIA SDN BHD AWARD NO: 2239 OF 2007 THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 5/4-1546/05 BETWEEN ENCIK SAIFUL NAFIS BIN SHARIFF AND AIRASIA SDN BHD AWARD NO: 2239 OF 2007 Before : TUAN CHEW SOO HO - CHAIRMAN Venue : The Industrial Court

More information

AWARD NO. : 1089 OF 2016

AWARD NO. : 1089 OF 2016 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. : 3/4-106/15 BETWEEN INTAN SOFIA BINTI ZAINUDDIN AND TOI TOI SERVICES SDN. BHD. AWARD NO. : 1089 OF 2016 Before Venue : PUAN ANNA NG FUI CHOO - Chairman (Sitting Alone)

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-173/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BHD. AND KARTHIGESU A/L V. CHINNASAMY AWARD NO : 2230 OF 2005

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-173/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BHD. AND KARTHIGESU A/L V. CHINNASAMY AWARD NO : 2230 OF 2005 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-173/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BHD. AND KARTHIGESU A/L V. CHINNASAMY AWARD NO : 2230 OF 2005 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - Chairman (Sitting Alone) Venue:

More information

AWARD NO. : 1614 OF 2018

AWARD NO. : 1614 OF 2018 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. : BETWEEN NAZREEN BEGUM BINTI MOHAMED YAACOB AND PETRONAS / PETRONAS CHEMICALS GROUP BERHAD AWARD NO. : 1614 OF 2018 Before Venue : PUAN ANNA NG FUI CHOO - Chairman

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 2/4-346/15 BETWEEN MOHAMED HASLAM BIN ABDUL RAZAK AND PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 2/4-346/15 BETWEEN MOHAMED HASLAM BIN ABDUL RAZAK AND PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 2/4-346/15 BETWEEN MOHAMED HASLAM BIN ABDUL RAZAK AND PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL SDN BHD AWARD NO. 552 OF 2018 Before : Y.A. PUAN ROSENANI BINTI ABD RAHMAN - Chairman

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 15/4-388/14 BETWEEN YASMIN BINTI HARON AND EXTOL CORPORATION (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 342 OF 2017

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 15/4-388/14 BETWEEN YASMIN BINTI HARON AND EXTOL CORPORATION (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 342 OF 2017 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 15/4-388/14 BETWEEN YASMIN BINTI HARON AND EXTOL CORPORATION (M) SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 342 OF 2017 Before : Y.A. PUAN REIHANA BTE ABD.RAZAK CHAIRMAN (SITTING ALONE)

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 18(12)/4-411/15 ZAKARIA BIN ISMAIL DAN EASTERN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION BERHAD AWARD NO: 857 OF 2017

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 18(12)/4-411/15 ZAKARIA BIN ISMAIL DAN EASTERN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION BERHAD AWARD NO: 857 OF 2017 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 18(12)/4-411/15 ZAKARIA BIN ISMAIL DAN EASTERN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION BERHAD AWARD NO: 857 OF 2017 Before : Y.A. TUAN GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ CHAIRMAN

More information

LEE PEI SZE v. SWIFTLET GARDEN SDN BHD

LEE PEI SZE v. SWIFTLET GARDEN SDN BHD 482 LEE PEI SZE v. SWIFTLET GARDEN SDN BHD Industrial Court, Johor Duncan Sikodol Award No: 167 of 2017 [Case No: 16/4-664/16] 23 January 2017 Dismissal: Probationer Pleadings Allegations of misconduct

More information

ABDUL AZIZ ISMAIL & ORS v. ROYAL SELANGOR CLUB

ABDUL AZIZ ISMAIL & ORS v. ROYAL SELANGOR CLUB Abdul Aziz Ismail & Ors [2015] 2 MELR v. Royal Selangor Club 325 ABDUL AZIZ ISMAIL & ORS v. ROYAL SELANGOR CLUB Industrial Court, Kuala Lumpur Eddie Yeo Soon Chye Award No: 327 of 2015 [Case No: 13(25)(22)(25)/4-1255/2011]

More information

Managing Workplace Misconduct

Managing Workplace Misconduct Managing Workplace Misconduct What is Misconduct? BR Ghaiye: Misconduct is not a term of art If the conduct of an employee is of such a character that he is not regarded as worthy of employment it may

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4(23)/4-772/13 BETWEEN KAMAL AZIZUL BIN AZIZ AND AMBANK (M) BERHAD AWARD NO : 475 OF 2017

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4(23)/4-772/13 BETWEEN KAMAL AZIZUL BIN AZIZ AND AMBANK (M) BERHAD AWARD NO : 475 OF 2017 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4(23)/4-772/13 BETWEEN KAMAL AZIZUL BIN AZIZ AND AMBANK (M) BERHAD AWARD NO : 475 OF 2017 BEFORE: VENUE: Y.A. PUAN SAROJINI A/P KANDASAMY Chairman (Sitting alone)

More information

THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 5(1)/3 702/03 BETWEEN MAYBANK BERHAD AND ASSOCIATION OF MAYBANK CLASS ONE OFFICERS (AMCO)

THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 5(1)/3 702/03 BETWEEN MAYBANK BERHAD AND ASSOCIATION OF MAYBANK CLASS ONE OFFICERS (AMCO) THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 5(1)/3 702/03 BETWEEN MAYBANK BERHAD AND ASSOCIATION OF MAYBANK CLASS ONE OFFICERS (AMCO) AWARD NO. 788 OF 2007 Before: TUAN CHEW SOO HO - CHAIRMAN YM. RAJA ALIZA

More information

March IR Law Free Newsletter. IR Law provides the following advisory/consultation services to Members and Non-Members*: Disciplinary proceedings

March IR Law Free Newsletter. IR Law provides the following advisory/consultation services to Members and Non-Members*: Disciplinary proceedings IRLaw CORPORATE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CONSULTANCY Dear Readers, This is our Free Newsletter, examining some updates on the new Public Holiday for Sarawak, Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and our usual

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO: 7/4-1077/13 BETWEEN ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABU BAKAR AND PANASONIC MANUFACTURING MALAYSIA BERHAD AWARD NO: 466 OF 2018

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO: 7/4-1077/13 BETWEEN ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABU BAKAR AND PANASONIC MANUFACTURING MALAYSIA BERHAD AWARD NO: 466 OF 2018 INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO: 7/4-1077/13 BETWEEN ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN ABU BAKAR AND PANASONIC MANUFACTURING MALAYSIA BERHAD AWARD NO: 466 OF 2018 BEFORE : Y.A. PUAN JAMHIRAH ALI CHAIRMAN VENUE : Industrial

More information

Held: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA

Held: Per Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA 1 PP v. HO HUAH TEONG COURT OF APPEAL, KUALA LUMPUR LAMIN MOHD YUNUS, PCA; ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, JCA; ABDUL KADIR SULAIMAN, JCA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: P09-3-97 3 AUGUST 2001 [2001] 3 CLJ 722 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

More information

EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION FORM ABX CORPORATION SDN BHD ( V) & UTS GROUP OF COMPANIES

EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION FORM ABX CORPORATION SDN BHD ( V) & UTS GROUP OF COMPANIES INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Please read the application form carefully and complete it in BLOCK LETTERS. 2. Please return the completed application form together with one (1) recent passport size photograph and photocopy

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-166/02 BETWEEN BINA GOODYEAR BERHAD AND SUBRAMANIAM A/L KANAIAPPAN AWARD NO : 773 OF 2004

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-166/02 BETWEEN BINA GOODYEAR BERHAD AND SUBRAMANIAM A/L KANAIAPPAN AWARD NO : 773 OF 2004 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-166/02 BETWEEN BINA GOODYEAR BERHAD AND SUBRAMANIAM A/L KANAIAPPAN AWARD NO : 773 OF 2004 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - Chairman (Sitting Alone) Venue: : Industrial

More information

MALAYSIA IN HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND JUHINOL BIN LIMBUIS RESPONDENT

MALAYSIA IN HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND JUHINOL BIN LIMBUIS RESPONDENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MALAYSIA IN HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPELLANT AND JUHINOL BIN LIMBUIS RESPONDENT 10 11 12 13 (KOTA KINABALU SESSIONS COURT CRIMINAL

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 13858 Goodwood Case No: C1658/2012 In the matter between: STATE And RAYMOND TITUS ACCUSED Coram: BINNS-WARD & ROGERS

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P ANTARA SAUL HAMID B. PAKIR MOHAMAD... PERAYU DAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P ANTARA SAUL HAMID B. PAKIR MOHAMAD... PERAYU DAN 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: P-01-61-1999 ANTARA SAUL HAMID B. PAKIR MOHAMAD... PERAYU DAN 1. INSPEKTOR ABDUL FATAH B. ABDUL RAHMAN RESPONDEN- 2. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 8, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2675 Lower Tribunal No. 13-26651 Eduardo Viera, Petitioner,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA WRIT NO: 22IP-29-06/2015 BETWEEN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA WRIT NO: 22IP-29-06/2015 BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA WRIT NO: 22IP-29-06/2015 BETWEEN 1) WORLD GRAND DYNAMIC MARKETING SDN BHD (Company No

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as State v. Jarvis, 2015-Ohio-4219.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 14CA010667 v. KRISTOPHER L. JARVIS Appellant

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-3029/04 BETWEEN TETUAN B. S. SIDHU & CO. AND SHAMSIAH BINTI ASRI AWARD NO : 227 OF 2006

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-3029/04 BETWEEN TETUAN B. S. SIDHU & CO. AND SHAMSIAH BINTI ASRI AWARD NO : 227 OF 2006 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-3029/04 BETWEEN TETUAN B. S. SIDHU & CO. AND SHAMSIAH BINTI ASRI AWARD NO : 227 OF 2006 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - CHAIRMAN (Sitting Alone) Venue : Industrial

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 18/4-352/2008 TEOH CHYE LYN ALLSTAFF OUTSOURCING SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 577 OF 2010

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 18/4-352/2008 TEOH CHYE LYN ALLSTAFF OUTSOURCING SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 577 OF 2010 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 18/4-352/2008 TEOH CHYE LYN V. ALLSTAFF OUTSOURCING SDN. BHD. AWARD NO: 577 OF 2010 Before : Y.A. RAJENDRAN NAYAGAM CHAIRMAN (Sitting Alone) Venue : Industrial Court

More information

THE ROLE, FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT IN RELATION TO RETRENCHMENT, TERMINATION AND DISMISSAL TREVOR GEORGE DE SILVA 14TH JANUARY 2009

THE ROLE, FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT IN RELATION TO RETRENCHMENT, TERMINATION AND DISMISSAL TREVOR GEORGE DE SILVA 14TH JANUARY 2009 THE ROLE, FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT IN RELATION TO RETRENCHMENT, TERMINATION AND DISMISSAL TREVOR GEORGE DE SILVA 14TH JANUARY 2009 JW MARRIOT 1 The long title of the Industrial Relations

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCC) /2014 BETWEEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCC) /2014 BETWEEN IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO.: W-02(IM)(NCC)-676-04/2014 BETWEEN ZAMIL STEEL VIETNAM BUILDINGS CO. LTD. - APPELLANT AND G.T.K. BERHAD (Company No.: 198500-P)

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-170/02 BETWEEN SEMANGAT RAKYAT SDN. BHD. AND

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-170/02 BETWEEN SEMANGAT RAKYAT SDN. BHD. AND INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-170/02 BETWEEN SEMANGAT RAKYAT SDN. BHD. AND JESUMARAN ANTHONY A/L J. MARIADASS @ MUHAMAD ADAM JESU ABDULLAH AWARD NO : 766 OF 2004 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN -

More information

EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA EQUITABLE REMEDY: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THEN LEE LIAN A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

More information

ILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD

ILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD 374 ILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD Industrial Court, Johor Mohd Azari Harun Award No: 515 of 2016 [Case No: 16/4-157/15] 27 April 2016 Dismissal: Misconduct due to poor performance Claimant dismissed

More information

Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland independent and effective investigations and reviews independent and effective investigations and reviews Index 1. Role of the PIRC

More information

CIRCULAR 2017/02. Tick ( ) where applicable. Please reply to any of Sara Worldwide Vacations Berhad Member Service Centres by 20 September 2017.

CIRCULAR 2017/02. Tick ( ) where applicable. Please reply to any of Sara Worldwide Vacations Berhad Member Service Centres by 20 September 2017. CIRCULAR 2017/02 Dear Valued Members, Warmest greetings from Easturia Vacation Club! 1. EASTURIA VACATION CLUB 6 th MEMBERS ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING We are pleased to inform that the 6 th Members Annual

More information

MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22C-20-09/2014 ANTARA PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR DAN

MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22C-20-09/2014 ANTARA PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR DAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN GUAMAN SIVIL NO: 22C--09/14 ANTARA PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR PLAINTIF DAN 1. PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD (No. Syarikat

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE SIGNATURE ) CASE NUMBER: 13/45391 HEARD: 29 FEBRUARY

More information

Attestation of Registrable Instruments (Mining) LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 387 ATTESTATION OF REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS (MINING) ACT 1960

Attestation of Registrable Instruments (Mining) LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 387 ATTESTATION OF REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS (MINING) ACT 1960 Attestation of Registrable Instruments (Mining) 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 387 ATTESTATION OF REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS (MINING) ACT 1960 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY

More information

Summary of Investigation SiRT File # Referral from RCMP - PEI December 4, 2017

Summary of Investigation SiRT File # Referral from RCMP - PEI December 4, 2017 Summary of Investigation SiRT File # 2017-036 Referral from RCMP - PEI December 4, 2017 John L. Scott Interim Director June 12, 2018 Background: On December 4, 2017, SiRT Interim Director, John Scott,

More information

KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE FEDERAL COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ PUBLISHED BY

KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE FEDERAL COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ PUBLISHED BY WARTA KERAJAAN PERSE EKUTUAN 29 Jun 2011 29 June 2011 P.U. (A) 208 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE FEDERAL COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/

More information

COURT IN SESSION TEACHER PACK CONTEMPORARY COURTROOM WORKSHOP CYBERBULLYING

COURT IN SESSION TEACHER PACK CONTEMPORARY COURTROOM WORKSHOP CYBERBULLYING COURT IN SESSION TEACHER PACK CONTEMPORARY COURTROOM WORKSHOP CYBERBULLYING National Justice Museum Education 2 WHAT TO DO BEFORE THE VISIT Print a hard copy of the Student Pack for each student. All students

More information

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res

More information

KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH TINGGI (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ PUBLISHED BY

KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH TINGGI (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA/ PUBLISHED BY WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 29 Jun 2011 29 June 2011 P.U. (A) 210 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH TINGGI (PINDAAN) 2011 RULES OF THE HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) 2011 DISIARKAN OLEH/ PUBLISHED

More information

Police Use of Force during Arrest

Police Use of Force during Arrest Police Use of Force during Arrest I N T R O D U C T I O N 1. On 12 May 2013 Police used force to arrest a man (Mr X) who was threatening to set himself on fire at a rural address in the North Island. As

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : 42S ANTARA KHOR SOCK KHIM LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA JUDGMENT

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : 42S ANTARA KHOR SOCK KHIM LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA JUDGMENT DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG RAYUAN JENAYAH KES NO : 42S-4-02-2016 ANTARA KHOR SOCK KHIM LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision

More information

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH October 28, 2013 13-29 No Criminal Charge Approved in the Death of Paul Boyd Victoria The Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Justice announced today that

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO: BA-A72NCvC /2017. Antara

DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO: BA-A72NCvC /2017. Antara DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO: BA-A72NCvC-384-03/2017 Antara SHAMSUDIN BIN MOHD YUSOF (NO K/P: 500521-05-5017) PLAINTIF Dan SUHAILA BINTI SULAIMAN

More information

ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN

ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN Daniel #2 ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN: EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE Gr. Termination 7/29/96 ARBITRATOR: WILLIAM P. DANIEL FACTS The claimant worked as a Switch

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W ANTARA DAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W ANTARA DAN DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W 02 1329 2005 ANTARA UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD DAN UJA SDN BHD PERAYU RESPONDEN (Dalam perkara Saman Pemula No. S3-24-2162-2004

More information

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 9/4-2260/06 BETWEEN KHOO EE PENG AND GALAXY AUTOMATION SDN BHD AWARD NO: 656 OF 2009

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 9/4-2260/06 BETWEEN KHOO EE PENG AND GALAXY AUTOMATION SDN BHD AWARD NO: 656 OF 2009 IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 9/4-2260/06 BETWEEN KHOO EE PENG AND GALAXY AUTOMATION SDN BHD AWARD NO: 656 OF 2009 Before : MOHD AMIN FIRDAUS ABDULLAH - CHAIRMAN Venue : INDUSTRIAL COURT

More information

JUDGMENT (Court enclosure no. 4)

JUDGMENT (Court enclosure no. 4) IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-22IP-37-09/2017 BETWEEN DARUL FIKIR (Business Registration No.: 000624088-H)

More information

Texas RioGrande Legal Aid

Texas RioGrande Legal Aid Texas RioGrande Legal Aid Defending Against a Disorderly Conduct Charge In Justice of the Peace (JP) or Municipal Court A Guide for Youth & Parents 1 DEFENDING AGAINST A DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGE IN JUSTICE

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-864/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN WETLANDS FOUNDATION AND DEVENDIRAN S.T. MANI AWARD NO : 917 OF 2005

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-864/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN WETLANDS FOUNDATION AND DEVENDIRAN S.T. MANI AWARD NO : 917 OF 2005 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-864/02 BETWEEN MALAYSIAN WETLANDS FOUNDATION AND DEVENDIRAN S.T. MANI AWARD NO : 917 OF 2005 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - Chairman (Sitting Alone) Venue : Industrial

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2005 BETWEEN: JAVIER RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 3, 2010 v No. 293142 Saginaw Circuit Court DONALD LEE TOLBERT III, LC No. 07-029363-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID

TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID In Texas, Disorderly Conduct cases are heard in Justice of the Peace (JP) or municipal courts. These courts will not provide you with a free lawyer, but it is a good idea to bring your own lawyer to court.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON No. 511 October 25, 2017 407 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of M. M. A., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. M. M. A., Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court J140225;

More information

California Bar Examination

California Bar Examination California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Paul sued David in federal court

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06. In the matter between: and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06. In the matter between: and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06 In the matter between: THANDILE FUNDA Plaintiff and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant JUDGMENT MILLER, J.:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO: D BETWEEN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO: D BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE STATE OF WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) SUIT NO: D5-22-1924-1999 BETWEEN TUCK SIN ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO Review No. : 62/2017 THE STATE versus TEBOHO

More information

Criminal Law Guidebook - Chapter 12: Sentencing and Punishment

Criminal Law Guidebook - Chapter 12: Sentencing and Punishment The following is a suggested solution to the problem on page 313. It represents an answer of an above average standard. The ILAC approach to problem-solving as set out in the How to Answer Questions section

More information

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH April 28, 2016 16-09 No Charges Approved for Force Used in Arrest by Vancouver Police Victoria - The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB), Ministry of Justice, announced

More information

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC LIMBU, Dino Registration No: 246153 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE AUGUST 2015 Outcome: Fitness to practise impaired; erasure with an immediate suspension order Dinu LIMBU, a dental

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(NCVC)(W) /2013] ANTARA DAN

DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(NCVC)(W) /2013] ANTARA DAN DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) [RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02(NCVC)(W)-143-01/2013] ANTARA 1. MUAFAKAT KEKAL SDN BHD 2. PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PALM SPRING @ DAMANSARA... PERAYU DAN 1. PESURUHJAYA

More information

MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A

MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester Assignment 1 Question 1 If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search

More information

(Company No D) (Incorporated in Malaysia)

(Company No D) (Incorporated in Malaysia) (Company No. 132493-D) (Incorporated in Malaysia) SUMMARY RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 9.21(2) OF BURSA MALAYSIA MAIN MARKET LISTING REQUIREMENTS

More information

UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN NIK FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN NIK FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA ii UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN NIK FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA iii UNCONSCIONABLE CALL OF PERFORMANCE BOND WAN NOOR SOLEHHA BINTI WAN

More information

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH July 3, 2014 14-15 No Charges Approved in IIO Investigations Involving Police Service Dogs Victoria The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB), Ministry of Justice, announced

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 DONNELL CANDY STATE OF MARYLAND

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 DONNELL CANDY STATE OF MARYLAND UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1280 September Term, 2016 DONNELL CANDY v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Wright, Zarnoch, Robert A., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4(2)(4)/4-241/15 BETWEEN MOHAMAD AZHAR BIN ABDUL HALIM AND NAZA MOTOR TRADING SDN. BHD. AWARD NO : 101 OF 2017

INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4(2)(4)/4-241/15 BETWEEN MOHAMAD AZHAR BIN ABDUL HALIM AND NAZA MOTOR TRADING SDN. BHD. AWARD NO : 101 OF 2017 INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4(2)(4)/4-241/15 BETWEEN MOHAMAD AZHAR BIN ABDUL HALIM AND NAZA MOTOR TRADING SDN. BHD. AWARD NO : 101 OF 2017 BEFORE : Y.A. PUAN SAROJINI A/P KANDASAMY Chairman (Sitting

More information

DOMESTIC INQUIRY SIVANESAN K VICE PRESIDENT - UNION EXECUTIVE CIMB BANK

DOMESTIC INQUIRY SIVANESAN K VICE PRESIDENT - UNION EXECUTIVE CIMB BANK DOMESTIC INQUIRY SIVANESAN K VICE PRESIDENT - UNION EXECUTIVE CIMB BANK THE ACT SECTION 14 EMPLOYMENT ACT 1955 1) An employee may, on the ground of misconduct...of his service, after a)dismiss Dismiss..

More information

D.R. 48/96 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah.

D.R. 48/96 RANG UNDANG-UNDANG. Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. D.R. 48/96 Naskhah Sahih Bahasa Inggeris RANG UNDANG-UNDANG b e r n a m a Suatu Akta untuk meminda Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. [ ] MAKA INILAH DIPERBUAT UNDANG-UNDANG oleh Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-pertuan

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH AND SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) MPUTI SEHLABANE...PLAINTIFF ROAD ACCIDENT FUND...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH AND SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) MPUTI SEHLABANE...PLAINTIFF ROAD ACCIDENT FUND... SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH AND SOUTH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Owing Goring AND. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Owing Goring AND. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2011-03769 BETWEEN Owing Goring AND Claimant The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago Defendant Before the Honourable Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-1046/02 BETWEEN METROD (MALAYSIA) BHD. AND SURADI BIN MD RUSDI AWARD NO : 1299 OF 2005

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-1046/02 BETWEEN METROD (MALAYSIA) BHD. AND SURADI BIN MD RUSDI AWARD NO : 1299 OF 2005 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO : 15/4-1046/02 BETWEEN METROD (MALAYSIA) BHD. AND SURADI BIN MD RUSDI AWARD NO : 1299 OF 2005 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - Chairman (Sitting Alone) Venue : Industrial

More information

California Bar Examination

California Bar Examination California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Dave brought his sports car into

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Condon [2010] QCA 117 PARTIES: R v CONDON, Christopher Gerard (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 253 of 2009 DC No 114 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(18)/4-1353/12 BETWEEN SHANMUGAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM AND MALAYSIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM BERHAD AWARD NO: 819 OF 2018

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(18)/4-1353/12 BETWEEN SHANMUGAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM AND MALAYSIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM BERHAD AWARD NO: 819 OF 2018 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA 6(18)/4-1353/12 BETWEEN SHANMUGAM A/L SUPRAMANIAM AND MALAYSIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM BERHAD AWARD NO: 819 OF 2018 Before Venue : Y.A. TUAN GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ - CHAIRMAN

More information

ADAM ABDULLAH v. MALAYSIAN OXYGEN BHD

ADAM ABDULLAH v. MALAYSIAN OXYGEN BHD 353 ADAM ABDULLAH v. MALAYSIAN OXYGEN BHD Industrial Court, Kuala Lumpur Mary Shakila G Azariah Award No: 521 of 2012 [Case No: 24/4-906/10] 24 April 2012 Dismissal: Retrenchment - Redundancy - Company

More information

DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE

DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE Authored by: Aprajita Bhargava* * Research Scholar, Davv, Indore (M.P.) ABSTRACT Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the principle of res gestae. Hearsay evidence is not

More information

I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F S O U T H A F R I C A ( C A P E O F G O O D H O P E P R O V I N C I A L D I V I S I O N )

I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F S O U T H A F R I C A ( C A P E O F G O O D H O P E P R O V I N C I A L D I V I S I O N ) REPORTABLE I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F S O U T H A F R I C A ( C A P E O F G O O D H O P E P R O V I N C I A L D I V I S I O N ) In the matter between: High Court Ref. No.: 061488/06 Magistrate s Serial

More information

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC /2016 ANTARA. Dan

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC /2016 ANTARA. Dan DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN DALAM KEBANKRAPAN NO: 29NCC-384-01/16 5 ANTARA Berkenaan : LIM CHENG POW (NRIC NO : 4401-71-5375) Dan Ex-Parte : LIM CHENG POW

More information

BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR

BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between SHEBOYGAN COUNTY INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2427, AFSCME, AFL-CIO Case 265 No. 52330 MA-8920 and SHEBOYGAN COUNTY Appearances:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015. In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015. In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015 In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND ANOTHER PLAINTIFFS AND MINISTER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS

More information

HH CA 143/13 X REF CRB GODFREY KONDO and FENIA AISUM versus THE STATE

HH CA 143/13 X REF CRB GODFREY KONDO and FENIA AISUM versus THE STATE 1 GODFREY KONDO and FENIA AISUM versus THE STATE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE HUNGWE AND BERE JJ HARARE 31 MARCH 2015 AND 7 OCTOBER 2015 Criminal Appeal J. Samukange, for the appellant E. Makoto, for the respondent

More information

1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GRENADA 2. MARCIA TOUSSAINT

1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GRENADA 2. MARCIA TOUSSAINT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GRENADA CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2006/0160 BETWEEN: ALBERTHA STEPHEN CLAIMANT and 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GRENADA 2.

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4/4-1264/12 BETWEEN JUSTIN MAURICE READ AND PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) AWARD NO : 965 OF 2017

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4/4-1264/12 BETWEEN JUSTIN MAURICE READ AND PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) AWARD NO : 965 OF 2017 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 4/4-1264/12 BETWEEN JUSTIN MAURICE READ AND PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) AWARD NO : 965 OF 2017 BEFORE : Y.A. PUAN SAROJINI A/P KANDASAMY Chairman (Sitting

More information

NOTICE OF DECISION. AND TO: Chief Constable Police Department. AND TO: Inspector Police Department. AND TO: Sergeant Police Department AND TO:

NOTICE OF DECISION. AND TO: Chief Constable Police Department. AND TO: Inspector Police Department. AND TO: Sergeant Police Department AND TO: IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE ACT, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367 AND IN THE MATTER OF A REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS OF DECEIT AND DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT AGAINST CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION TO:

More information

To obtain additional copies of this document, or to ask how to contact Victim Services in your area, contact:

To obtain additional copies of this document, or to ask how to contact Victim Services in your area, contact: October 2013 To obtain additional copies of this document, or to ask how to contact Victim Services in your area, contact: Victims Services Policy and Program Development Branch Alberta Justice and Solicitor

More information

Texas RioGrande Legal Aid

Texas RioGrande Legal Aid Texas RioGrande Legal Aid Defending Against an Assault Charge In Justice of the Peace (JP) or Municipal Court A Guide for Youth & Parents 1 DEFENDING AGAINST AN ASSAULT CHARGE IN JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

More information

Who s who in a Criminal Trial

Who s who in a Criminal Trial Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being

More information

Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court (Toronto West Region) Regina. Anton Harizanov. Before. His Worship P. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace

Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court (Toronto West Region) Regina. Anton Harizanov. Before. His Worship P. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace Citation: R. v. Harizanov, 2008 ONCJ 690 Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court (Toronto West Region) Regina v Anton Harizanov Before His Worship P. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace Charge: Careless

More information

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: Panel: Daphne Simon, Chair: (Hedy) Anna Walsh and Aly N. Alibhai, Members Re: Aziz Ahmad (Report No. 6707) Holder of Toronto Vehicle-For-Hire

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A121535

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A121535 Filed 4/13/09 In re E.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH December 23, 2014 14-28 No Charges Approved in Abbotsford IIO Investigation Victoria The Criminal Justice Branch, Ministry of Justice (CJB) announced today that

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,

More information

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC HOUGHTON, Nicola Louise Registration No: 130502 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 2015 Outcome: Erasure (with immediate order) Nicola Louise HOUGHTON, Verified competency

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO:15/4-399/01 BETWEEN CAPETRONIC (MALAYSIA) CORPORATION SDN. BHD. AND ALAN NG LI HONG AWARD NO.

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO:15/4-399/01 BETWEEN CAPETRONIC (MALAYSIA) CORPORATION SDN. BHD. AND ALAN NG LI HONG AWARD NO. INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO:15/4-399/01 BETWEEN CAPETRONIC (MALAYSIA) CORPORATION SDN. BHD. AND ALAN NG LI HONG AWARD NO.: 400 OF 2004 Before : N. RAJASEGARAN - Chairman (Sitting Alone) Venue

More information

PERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI (PENGKOMPAUNAN KESALAHAN) 2016 PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 2016

PERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI (PENGKOMPAUNAN KESALAHAN) 2016 PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 2016 WARTA KERAJAAN PERSEKUTUAN 14 Mac 2016 14 March 2016 P.U. (A) 60 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE PERATURAN-PERATURAN PERLINDUNGAN DATA PERIBADI (PENGKOMPAUNAN KESALAHAN) 2016 PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (COMPOUNDING

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAND AND TOBAGO Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAND AND TOBAGO Defendant REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.: CV2011-04900 BETWEEN DENZIL FORDE Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAND AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honourable Mr. Justice

More information

MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT FEDERAL TERRITORY, LABUAN. CIVIL CASE NO: LBN-24NCvC-6/ BETWEEN SEJATI SDN. BHD..

MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT FEDERAL TERRITORY, LABUAN. CIVIL CASE NO: LBN-24NCvC-6/ BETWEEN SEJATI SDN. BHD.. MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT FEDERAL TERRITORY, LABUAN CIVIL CASE NO: LBN-24NCvC-6/8-2016 BETWEEN SEJATI SDN. BHD.. PLAINTIFF AND DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND SURVEYS.. 1 ST DEFENDANT SABAH

More information