Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS...
STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 1041
: The court found that the exemptions granted under the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020, specifically Sections 35 and 38C, were lawful and did not constitute illegality or breach of constitutional rights, including Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. The court explicitly held that there was no breach of constitutional rights or principles of natural justice, and that the decisions were justified under the Act given the circumstances of the pandemic. The application for judicial review was dismissed, confirming the legality of the orders made under the Act.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 4235
: The court held that the actions of a private law firm (Shearn) in advising a bank (CIMB) on compliance with Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) orders did not constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. The court emphasized that constitutional law applies only to violations by the legislature, executive, or their agencies, and not to actions by private entities acting in a private capacity. Therefore, even if the legal advice provided by Shearn was erroneous, it did not amount to a breach of constitutional rights, as Shearn did not exercise state power. This directly addresses the query regarding illegality and orders made in breach of the Constitution by affirming that private legal advice, even if incorrect, does not violate constitutional protections.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 2294
: The court explicitly addressed the issue of whether actions taken by CIMB Bank and its legal advisor, Shearn, constituted an illegal or unconstitutional deprivation of property rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. The court ruled that even if Shearn''''s interpretation of the AMLATFA orders was erroneous, this could not amount to an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights because Shearn acted in a private capacity as a law firm and did not exercise state power. Constitutional law only applies to violations by the legislature, executive, or their agencies, not private entities. Therefore, the actions in question did not breach the Constitution.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 2294
: The court held that even if legal advice provided by a private law firm (Shearn) regarding the interpretation of AMLATFA orders was erroneous, such error did not constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. This is because constitutional law only applies to violations by the legislature, executive, or their agencies, not by private entities acting in a private capacity. Since Shearn acted as a private law firm advising a bank, it did not exercise state power, and thus its actions could not be considered a breach of constitutional rights.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 2294
: The court held that the actions of a private law firm (Shearn) in advising a bank on compliance with AMLATFA orders did not constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, as constitutional law only applies to violations by the legislature, executive, or their agencies, not private entities acting in a private capacity. The court further found that Shearn''''s advice, even if erroneous, did not amount to a breach of constitutional rights because it did not involve state power or encroachment into the executive''''s domain.
