SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 84

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
NOR HAZLIZA ISMAIL & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMED YUSOFF SHAIK MADAR – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Karin Lim Ai Ching,Murgan D Maniam,Thanganachiar Vasantharajan ,Respondent Advocate: Amareson K Velu,Kernail Singh Popvinder Singh

Judgement Key Points

The part that quotes the statutory provision related to rehearing is: "Section 69. Hearing of appeals. \n\n(1) Appeals to the Court of Appeal shall be by way of re-hearing, and in relation to such appeals the Court of Appeal shall have all the Powers and duties, as to amendment or otherwise, of the High Court together with full discretionary power to receive further evidence by oral examination in Court or through a remote communication technology, by affidavit, or by deposition taken before an examiner or commissioner." (!)


JUDGMENT

Hashim Hamzah JCA:

Introduction

[1] For ease of reference, the parties to the present appeal shall be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court.

[2] The Plaintiff was a former employee of the 2nd Defendant, a local authority established under s 3 of the Local Government Act 1976 by the Penang State Authority. The 1st Defendant was an accountant with the 2nd Defendant's Finance Department. The Plaintiff retired from service on 19 April 2020.

[3] On 8 December 2020, which was a few months after he retired from service, the Plaintiff filed an action in the Sessions Court against the Defendants, claiming, among other things, that the Defendants had defamed him. The Plaintiff's cause of action against the Defendants was based on a letter issued by the 1st Defendant on 7 February 2019 in which a surcharge action for the loss of Government's movable assets was taken against the Plaintiff. A sum of RM429.68 was deducted in five equal amounts from his monthly salary, ie from February 2019 until June 2019. In his claim, the Plaintiff also sought the refund of the deducted salaries.

[4] On 23 August 2021, the Defendants filed an application to strike out the Plaintiff's writ and state

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top