CIVIL DIVISION

51
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
CIVIL DIVISION
T
he Civil Division performs the following roles and functions:
Represents the Government of Malaysia in all civil proceedings
Represents the Attorney General in matters of public interest
Processes applications for appointments as notaries public pursuant to the Notaries
Public Act 1959 [Act 115]
Represents the Attorney General in petitions for admissions as advocates and solicitors
pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166]
Processes applications for Special Admission Certificates and Certificates of Renewal
under Part IIA of the Legal Profession Act 1976
Represents the Attorney General in cases concerning public, religious, social or
charitable trusts
The Civil Division consists of 5 Units that are responsible for handling cases in different
and specialized fields:
Constitutional and Administrative Law Unit
Government Contracts and Medical Negligence Unit
Tort and Statutory Duties Unit
Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Unit
Execution and Enforcement Unit
ORGANIZATION CHART
HEAD OF CIVIL DIVISION HEAD OF CIVIL DIVISION
Deputy Head of Civil Division I Deputy Head of Civil Division I
Government
Contracts and Medical
Negligence Unit
Government
Contracts and Medical
Negligence Unit
Deputy Head of Civil Division II Deputy Head of Civil Division II
Tort and Statutory
Duties Unit
Tort and Statutory
Duties Unit
Enforcement and
Execution Unit
Enforcement and
Execution Unit
Arbitration and
ADR Unit
Arbitration and
ADR Unit
Penang Penang Johor Johor
State Units State Units
Kedah Kedah
K.Lumpur K.Lumpur
Pahang Pahang Perak Perak Sarawak Sarawak
Constitutional and
Administrative Law
Unit
52
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNIT
The scope of this Unit is to peruse and conduct cases or declarations involving constitutional
and/or administrative law issues. This Unit also handles admission petition of advocates
and solicitors.
Among the cases handled by this Unit include:
Issues of freedom of religion
Issues of citizenship
Immigration
Issues under the Anti Money-Laundering Act 2001 [Act 613]
Election Petitions
Judicial Review against administrative decisions made by Minister or any government
department, dismissal, demotion and other administrative issues
PERFORMANCE
Throughout 2005 and 2006, this Unit was able to resolve 1,984 cases which include the
following cases of public interest:
Federal Court
Civil Appeal No. 01-22-2004
Dato Ismail bin Kamus
-v-
Pegawai Pengurus Pilihan Raya,
Zainal Abidin bin Azim & Ors
Summary: The 3
rd
Respondent was declared the returned candidate to the Selangor State
Constituency (N17) Gombak Setia seat in 2004 instead of the Appellant. The Appellants petition to
the Election Court was dismissed with costs. He appealed to the Federal Court pursuant to section
36A of the Election Offences Act 1954 (EOA).
The Appellants contended that the extension of voting time and the use of different electoral rolls
were serious violations and non-compliances with written law that rendered the election null and
void pursuant to section 32(b) of the EOA. The appellant urged the Federal Court to: (i) shun a
narrow and highly technical reading of section 32(b); apply and enlarge a constitutionally-correct
approach based on English law; (ii) fnd that the Appellant had discharged his slight burden of proof
which effectively shifted the burden upon the Respondents to call witnesses in rebuttal, failing which
an adverse inference could be drawn against the Respondents; and (iii) not to rigidly and literally
interpret section 32(b) given that the Respondents had conceded that there was a breach of election
laws. The Respondents submitted inter alia the Appellant failed to prove that the non-compliance of
the election laws affected the result of the election pursuant to section 32(b) of the EOA.
Held:
1. The two limbs in section 32(b) of the EOA are to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively.
Section 32(b) clearly casts the onus on a petitioner to prove to the satisfaction of the election judge
that there was non-compliance with the provisions of any written law relating to an election and that
such non-compliance affected the result of the election.
2. The phrase the result of the election in section 32(b) means the success of one candidate over
another and not merely an alteration in the number of votes given to each candidate.
3. On the facts, there was no evidence at all to prove the allegation that a voter had voted twice. Even
if a voter did, there was no evidence to suggest that the voter had voted for the 3
rd
Respondent. It was
wrong therefore, to assume that the 3
rd
Respondent had won because of such votes. There was also
no evidence to substantiate the allegations of double voting due to the existence of different electoral
rolls. Even if the allegations were considered, there was still no evidence to show that the problem
was so widespread as to have affected the result of the election. The Appellant had therefore failed
to prove that the non-compliance had affected the result of the election. Appeal dismissed.
53
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Court of Appeal
Civil Appeal No. W-01-29-2001
Lina Joy
-v-
Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors
Summary: The appellant was born a Muslim and her name originally was Azlina bte Jailani. In 1990
she claimed to have accepted the Christian faith and was subsequently baptized. She applied to the
National Registration Department (the NRD) to have her name changed to Lina Lelani and later to
Lina Joy on the basis of her change of religion. Her change of name was subsequently allowed, but
the word Islam was stated in her National Registration Identity Card (NRIC). She submitted proof
of her change of religion and applied to the NRD to have the word Islam deleted from her NRIC.
However the NRD requested for the appellant to submit a certifcate and/or order from the Syariah
Court.
The issue was whether the NRD was right in law in rejecting the appellants application under
Regulation 14 of the National Registration Regulations 1990 (the 1990 Regulations) to have the
statement of her religion as Islam deleted from her NRIC and in requiring a certifcate and/or order
from the Syariah Court.
The respondent relied on paragraph (cc)(xiii) of Regulation 4 that the Director General is entitled to
call for additional information from a person applying for a change of name under Regulation 14.
Therefore, there was nothing illegal in the Director General requesting the appellant to produce a
certifcate and/or order from the Syariah Court.
However, counsel for the appellant submitted that Regulation 4(cc)(xiii) only permits the Director General
to request for information in respect of the particulars furnished by the appellant. So, in the present
instance the Director General would have been entitled to ask the appellant to produce her baptismal
certifcate to show that she was in fact a Christian as stated in her application form. Accordingly, the
request for the order from the Syariah Court was not a request authorized by Regulation 4 (cc)(xiii).
Held: Appeal dismissed by the majority.
Lina Joy appealed to the Federal Court. The case is now pending decision before the Federal Court.
Federal Court
Civil Appeal No: 02-22-2006(W)
Cherie Booth QC
-v-
Attorney General, Malaysia & Ors
Summary: The appellant appealed against the decision of the High Court Judge who refused
the application of an ad hoc admission of the Appellant, Cherie Booth QC, to the Malaysian
Bar pursuant to section 18(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) for the purpose of
appearing in two Federal Court Appeals. The Respondents main ground of objection was that
the Appellant had no special qualifications or experience of a nature not available amongst
advocates and solicitors in Malaysia. Hence, the only issue requiring determination was
whether the Appellant had shown that she had such qualifications or experience that would
render her eligible for such admission.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
It was pertinent to note that Fawziah Holdings had appointed Dato R. R. Sethu as senior
counsel to argue the case in the High Court. In the Court of Appeal, Fawziah Holdings
appointed Dato Dr. Cyrus Das as senior counsel. Both were experienced senior members
of the Bar and were capable of handling the pending appeals in the Federal Court. It was,
therefore, not true that there were no local advocates and solicitors of a quality and type
available amongst the 12,000 in Malaysia who were equally qualified and experienced to
handle the appeals. Further, it was unclear the extent the Appellant would effectively be able
to assist the Federal Court since she had not been present during the proceedings before
the lower courts. Surely, a foreign counsel, like the Appellant, lacking in local knowledge
and not having handled the trial and the appeal, would necessarily be disadvantaged in
handling the appeals in the Federal Court.
54
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Federal Court
Civil Application No: 01-3-2005
Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak
(an infant, by his guardian ad litem, Syed Ahmad Johari bin Syed Mohd)
-v-
Fatimah bte Sihi & Ors
Summary: The appellants, students of one Sekolah Kebangsaan Serting Hilir (FELDA),
were expelled from the said primary school for refusing to comply with Regulation 3 of the
Peraturan Sekolah Kebangsaan Serting (FELDA) 1997 (School Regulations 1997). The
appellants had worn turbans as part of their school uniform to school, which was prohibited
by Regulation 3(i)(i) of the School Regulations 1997, and their refusal to cooperate with the
relevant authorities requests for their adherence to the School Regulations 1997 ultimately
resulted in their expulsion. The appellants challenged their dismissal in court and the learned
judge found in their favour, inter alia, ruling the School Regulations 1997 was unconstitutional.
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the High Court and upon appeal, leave was
granted to appeal on one issue only i.e. whether the regulations of the School Regulations
1997 prohibiting the wearing of serban (turban) by school pupils violated Article 11(1) of
the Federal Constitution.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
1. The School Regulations 1997, in so far as it prohibits the students from wearing the
turban as part of the school uniform during school hours, does not contravene the provision
of Article 11(1) of the Constitution and was, therefore, not unconstitutional.
2. The wearing of a turban (by an adult Muslim male) even if sunat or commendable,
certainly does not rank on the same level as sunat prayers. Thus, the practice is of little
significance from the point of view of the religion of Islam, what more, in relation to under-
aged boys, as in the present instance.
3. This was not a total prohibition of the wearing of the turban. The primary school
students, although not allowed to wear the turban as part of the school uniform i.e. during
school hours, were not prevented from wearing the turban at other times, such as, during
performing Zohor prayers in the school surau.
4. It must be accepted that Malaysia is a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and
multi-religious country and by any standard, Malaysias success has been miraculous in
terms of unity, peace and prosperity. Whatever the other factors that had contributed to it,
the educational system that had helped to mould the minds of the Malaysian boys and girls
in growing up to become Malaysians could not be ignored. The educationists should be given
some respect and credit when they formulate some regulations applicable in their schools for
the general good of all the students, society and later the nation.
55
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Federal Court
Rayuan Sivil No. 01-5-2006
Mohd Ridza Bin Zain
-v-
1. Hanafi Bin Mamat
2. Pegawai Pengurus Pilihanraya
3. Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya
Summary: This appeal is against the decision of the Election Judge dismissing with costs
after trial the Election Petition presented by the Appellant in respect of the Pengkalan Pasir
N12 State constituency where the First Respondent was returned and elected with a winning
majority of 134 votes in the election held on 6/12/2005.
The relief the Appellant was seeking in the said Election Petition was for a declaration that
the election for the State Constituency of N. 12 Pengkalan Pasir held on 6/12/2005 was
void and to declare that the First Respondent was not duly elected or ought not to have
been returned under the relief prayed for pursuant to section 35(a) and (b) of the Election
Offences Act, 1954.
The Election Petition sets out seven (7) grounds to support the Petitioners contention that
the said election be declared as void. The said grounds are as follows:
(a) Bribery Section 32(a) Election Offences Act 1954;
(b) Treating - Section 32(a) Election Offences Act
(c) Personation section 7 read together with Section 32(c) Election Offences
(d) Undue influence section 9 read together with Section 32(c) Election Offences
(e) Corrupt Practice section 11(c) read together with Section 32(c) Election
Offences
(f) Promoting feelings of ill will or hostility Section 4A read together with Section
32(b) Election Offences
(g) Violation of Regulation 19(7) of the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations
1981
Held:
The Federal Court dismissed the Appellants appeal with costs on the ground that the Petitioner
did not prove his locus standi to file the Election Petition as required under Regulation 4(1)(a)
of the Election Petition Rules 1954 and section 34 of the Election Offences Act 1954.
56
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Federal Court
08 175 Tahun 2005 (T)
Sulaiman Bin Takrib (No. K/P: 490224-08-5731 Applicant
-v-
Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu Respondent
-v-
Kerajaan Malaysia ...Intervener
Summary: The Applicant is seeking a declaration that section 51 of the Administration of
Islamic Religious Affairs (Terengganu) 2001 (AIRA) and sections 10 and 14 of the Syariah
Criminal Offences (Takzir) (Terengganu) Enactment 2001 (SCOT) are invalid and void on the
ground that the State Legislative Assembly of the State of Terengganu (SLAT) has no legislative
power to enact the said law. Briefly the application which is made under Article 4(4) read
with Article 128 of the Federal Constitution is premised on the following grounds that -

(a) the SLAT has created the Fatwa Committee as an independent legislative body in the
State of Terengganu contrary to the Federal Constitution and in particular List II
Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution;
(b) the Fatwa Committee is enacting criminal law contrary to Item 4 (e) (ii) List I Ninth
Schedule Federal Constitution and the precepts of Islam;
(c) the Fatwa Committee is enacting criminal law in violation of his fundamental liberties as
enshrined in Article 11(1) (freedom of religion), Article 10 (freedom of speech, assembly
and association and Article 5(1) (personal liberty) of the Federal Constitution.
The case is now pending decision by the Federal Court.
Federal Court
Civil Appeal No. 01-24-2004
Between
Wong Chong Sang Appellant
And
1. Nga Kor Ming
2. Pegawai Pengurus Bahagian Pilihan Raya
N. 37 Pantai Remis, Perak Darul Ridzuan
3. Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia Respondents
Summary: The Appellant lost to the 1
st
Respondent in the general elections held on 21 March 2004.
Dissatisfed, the Appellant fled an election petition seeking declarations that the election of the 1
st

Respondent was null and void and that he be returned as the successful candidate. The Appellant claimed
that the 2
nd
Respondent, the Returning Offcer should have rejected the 1
st
Respondents nomination
papers on nomination day as one of three copies of the nomination papers fled was defective, the
name of the constituency being incorrectly stated. If he had, the Appellant would have been returned
unopposed. The Election Judge dismissed the election petition. The Court held that the name of the
relevant constituency could be suffciently identifed from the other particulars in the defective nomination
paper or by cross-referencing the same with the electoral roll. Alternatively the Returning Offcer could
look at the other two copies of the nomination papers which were correctly fled. The Court further held
that even assuming that there was an improper acceptance of the nomination paper the purity of the
election process remained intact as the electorate was given a change to vote for the candidate of their
choice. The alleged non-compliance did not affect the result of the election.
The Appellant appealed to the Federal Court.
Hold: The Federal Court dismissed the appeal with costs affrming the Election Courts decision.
57
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Kuala Lumpur High Court
Court No: R1-25-61-2004
Yazid Sufaat & Ors
-v-
Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya Malaysia
Summary: The applicants were Malaysian citizens and detainees under the Internal
Security Act 1960 (ISA) at Pusat Tahanan Kamunting, Perak. The respondent was the
Election Commission (Commission) set up under Article 114 of the Federal Constitution.
When Parliament and the Legislative State Assemblies (except Sarawak) were dissolved
on March 2004, paving the way for the 11
th
general election for Malaysia, the applicants
informed the Commission by way of two letters dated 15.3.2004 and 17.3.2004 of their
right to vote, their intention to vote and for the Commission to facilitate the casting of their
votes during the election. They wrote a similar letter to the Commission on 20.3.2004.
The 11
th
general election was held on 21.3.2004, but the applicants could not and were
not able to cast their votes. This, according to the applicants, amounted to denial of
their rights to vote pursuant to Article 119 of the Federal Constitution.
Held: Application dismissed with costs.
1. The applicants were registered as electors during the previous general election
and being ISA detainees, the applicants were not convicted prisoners serving sentence
of imprisonment. Thus, they were not disqualified from voting in the previous general
election and had the constitutional rights to vote. However, their rights to vote must be
at a particular constituency where they have registered themselves as electors.
2. It was not the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that all electors would
vote on the polling day. Voting is not compulsory in Malaysia. It is left to the individual
registered electors to go to the polling station of the constituency where his name has
been registered as an elector. It was not the duty of the Commission to transport the
applicants to the respective constituencies to enable them to vote on the polling day.
3. The applicants were not qualified to be postal voters since they had not made
formal application to be registereds as postal voters under reg. 3(1)(f) of the Election
(Postal Voting) Regulation 2003. Therefore there was no violation of their rights when
the Commission did not provide them with the postal ballot papers.
4. The applicants were detained under the ISA, a law enacted under Article 149
of the Federal Constitution which states that any law introduced for the purposes of
curbing any activities that is prejudicial to public order or the security of the country or
part thereof is valid notwithstanding that it is inconsistent with the provision of Article 5,
Article 9, Article 10 or Article 13. Hence, when a person is detained under the ISA, he
loses the aforesaid rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The case is now pending hearing before
the Court of Appeal.
58
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
PERCENTAGE OF CASES HANDLED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNIT IN 2005
The above chart shows the percentage of opened, closed and outstanding cases for the
year 2005. The highest percentage is the outstanding cases amounting to 3298 cases
which make up 57%. The difference between the number of opened and closed cases is
minimal whereby 1203 for cases registered and 1015 for cases closed.
NUMBER OF CASES ACCORDING TO THE TYPES OF CASES HANDLED BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNIT IN 2005
No Type of case Total
1. Martial Court 28
2. Administrative Law 537
3. Public Service 329
4. Labour, Industrial and Trade Union 68
5. Call to the Bar Petition 2141
6. Government Proceedings 22
7. Election Petition 101
8. Constitution 154
9. Land 304
13%
2%
16%
17%
Court Martial
Public Service
Government
Constitution
Call To The Bar Petition
Administrative Law
Labour, Industrial and Trade Union
Election Petitiom
Land
12%
13%
6%
11%
10%
59
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
NUMBER OF REGISTERED CASES HANDLED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNIT IN 2006
At the beginning of 2006, there were 3,805 cases brought forward from 2005. Up to the
end of December 2006, there were 1,367 new files registered in which the total number
of cases handled by this Unit is 5,172 cases. Out of these 5,172 cases, only 969 cases
were closed at the end of 2006. Hence, the total number of outstanding cases as at end
of 2006 is 4,203 cases.
1%
3%
4%
8% 1%
15%
9%
2%
57%
Court Martial
Public Service
Call To The Bar Petition
Election Petition
Administrative Law
Labour, ndustrial and Trade Union
Government Proceedings
Constitution
Land
4203
969
3805
1367
brought forward from 2005
closed in 2006
registered in 2006
outstanding as at December 2006
CHART SHOWING TYPES OF CASES HANDLED BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNIT
60
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
The chart above shows the percentage of types of cases handled by this Unit as at the
end of 2006. The petition admission of advocates and solicitors has the highest percentage
of 56% which is in lieu with the increased number of such petition.
Included hereinunder are some of the articles extracted from local newspapers regarding
some of the high profile cases handled by this Unit.
PERCENTAGE OF PENDING CASES AS AT THE END OF DECEMBER 2006
56%
Martial Court
Administrative Law
Public Services
Labour,Industrial and Trade Union
Petition for Admission to the Bar
Government Proceedings
Election Petition
Constitution
Land
5%
8%
14%
1% 8%
4%
3%
1%
61
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
62
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE UNIT
The scope of the Contracts and Medical Negligence Unit are:
To initiate civil proceeding involving Government of Malaysia in cases such as:
Public Service Department education loans
Ministry of Education scholarships
Government Quarters
Excess payment of allowances
Government contract
To defend Government of Malaysia in:
Government contract cases
Medical negligence cases
To process applications for appointments or re-appointment as Notary Public
pursuant to the Notaries Public Act 1959 [Act 115]
The chart below shows the number of cases conducted by the Unit for 2005 and 2006.
250
200
150
100
50
0
Excess
payment
allowance
Govt
Quarters
Medical
Negligence
Loan /
Scholarship
Contract Notary
Public
Youth Loan
Claim
63
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Among the cases handled by this Unit in 2005/2006 were
Johor Baru Sessions Court
Summons No: 52 - 231 - 1997
(PN/JR/HQ/SL/11/74/6/2001)
Salmah Bt. Suleiman
-v-
Dr. Mondzi Bin Basir & Anor.
Summary: The Plaintiff sued the Defendants for negligence for causing the death of
her foetus during delivery. The Defence case was that the Plaintiffs foetus died of birth
asphyxia which was not related to the delivery process but of antenatal events. Judgment
of the court was delivered on 25.5.2005.
Held:
Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants was dismissed with costs.
Ipoh Sessions Court
Summons No: 51 - 71 - 2001
1. Lee Ah Sai
2. Khor Khai Boon
-v-
Government of Malaysia

Summary: The Plaintiff sought damages for alleged negligence on the treatment given to
their son who had dies of myocarditis with massive pulmonary haemorrhage. The Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendant had failed to take the necessary actions to treat the deceased
thus resulting in the untimely death of their son. The Defendants in their defence argued
that at the material time, the treatment given to the deceased was correct and proper.
Judgment of the court was delivered on 22.12.2005.
Held:
Plaintiffs claim against Defendant was dismissed with costs.
64
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
NUMBER OF NEW MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES FROM 2002 TO 2006 HANDLED BY
CONTRACT & MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE UNIT
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Number of
cases
34 36 36 33 39
STATISTICS OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES
DIVISION OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES ACCORDING
TO MEDICAL DISCIPLINES
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
OTHERS
16%
PAEDIATRIC
2%
MEDICAL
13%
SURGERY
9%
ORTHOPAEDIC
15%
0&G
45%
65
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
TORT & STATUTORY DUTIES UNIT
The Tort and Statutory Duties Unit commences and conducts all civil proceedings relating
to the law of tort and statutory duties for and on behalf of the Government of Malaysia
and the respective government agencies.
Among the cases handled by this Unit include:
Motor accident
Assault
Wrongful shooting
Wrongful arrest
Malicious prosecution
Cases concerning the Road Transport Department
PERFORMANCE
Among the cases handled by this Unit in 2005 and 2006 were:
Court of Appeal
Civil Appeal No. : W-01-12-04
Lay Kee Tee & 183 Others Appellants
-v-
1. Government of Malaysia
2. Government of Negeri Sembilan
3. Government of Perak
4. Government of Selangor Respondents

Summary: The Appellants are pig farmers and are claiming special, general, aggravated
and exemplary damages as a result of the Japanese Encephalitis and Nipah virus
outbreak in 1999. They claimed to have suffered personal injuries, loss of dependency,
destruction of pigs and property as a result of the Respondents actions or omissions.
Eight causes of action were framed including negligence and breach of statutory duties.
The Appellants allege that the Respondents did not act with sufficient promptitude and
allowed the situation to worsen to such an extent that led to the Appellants to suffering
the alleged injuries and losses. The High Court struck out the Appellants claim under O
18 r 19 Rules Of The High Court 1980 as disclosing no cause of action, being frivolous
and vexatious and an abuse of the courts process. The Appellants appealed. Judgment
of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 6.4.2005.
Held: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that there were triable issues
raised and the case ought to proceed by way of a trial.
The Respondents have filed an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.
66
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
High Court Kuala Lumpur
Civil Action No. : D1-21-54-2005
1. Indah Desa Saujana Corporation Sdn Bhd
2. Winner Place Sdn Bhd
3. Low Eng Cheong Plaintiffs
-v-
1. James Foong Cheng Yuen
[Judge High Court of Malaya]
2. Government of Malaysia Defendants
Summary:
The Plaintiffs sued the 1
st
Defendant who was then the High Court Judge in charge of the
Civil Division of the Kuala Lumpur High Court for allegedly interfering with the execution
of a judgment. The Attorney Generals Chambers applied to strike out the action on the
grounds that the claim did not disclose a cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous and
vexatious and an abuse of the courts process. The Plaintiffs responded by applying for
an order preventing the Attorney General from acting for the 1
st
Defendant. The decision
of the court was delivered on 23.11.2005.
Held:
The application to prevent the Attorney General from acting for the 1
st
Defendant was
dismissed on the ground that Article 145 of the Federal Constitution gives ample power to
the Attorney General to represent any person performing functions under the Constitution.
The application to strike out the claim was further allowed with costs.
The Plaintiffs have appealed to the Court of Appeal.
67
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Court Of Appeal
Civil Appeal No. : B-02-419-2002
1. Government of Selangor
2. United Engineers (M) Berhad
3. Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia
4. Government of Malaysia Appellants
-v-
Sagong Tasi and 6 Others Respondents
Summary: Some land occupied by the Respondents who are Orang Asli was excised
for the purposes of building a highway in Dengkil. The Respondents sought declaratory
reliefs claiming that they were owners of the land by custom, holders of native title and
holders of usufructuary rights of the lands. They also claimed that the Appellants owed
them fiduciary duties which were breached and claimed compensation. The Appellants,
inter alia, denied that such rights over the lands existed in law and if such rights existed
the same had been extinguished. The High Court granted the declaratory reliefs and
ordered compensation to be paid. The Appellants appealed. Decision of the court was
delivered on 19.9.2005.
Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the the Respondents
were entitled to customary title and ordered that compensation be paid in accordance
with the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and not the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954: The Court
further awarded damages for trespass, and aggravated damages.
The case is now pending hearing before the Federal Court after leave to appeal was
granted to the Appellants.
68
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam
Civil Action No. : 21-136-2005
Lee Heng Moy
[Plaintiff acting in person through Lee Heng Yau
as Plaintiffs Power Of Attorney] Plaintiffs
-v-
1. Tan Kim Leong
2. BDO Capital Consultants Sdn Bhd
3. Ranjit Ooi & Robert Low
4. Datin Paduka Zaleha binti Zahari
[Judge High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam]
5. Tun Ahmad Fairuz bin Dato Sheikh Abdul Halim
[Chief Justice of Malaysia]
6. Government of Malaysia Defendants
Summary: The Plaintiff sued the Defendants through her power of attorney wherein
the power of attorney acted as solicitor and advocate for her. The statement of claim
showed that the Plaintiff was aggrieved with certain orders made by the 4
th
Defendant in
exercising judicial functions in a civil suit. Allegations of negligence, oppressive actions
and bad faith were made. The 4
th
, 5
th
and 6
th
Defendants applied to strike out the suit
as it disclosed no cause of action, as being scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and as
an abuse of the courts process. The application also sought an order that the power of
attorney had no locus standi to act as advocate and solicitor. The delivered its judgment
on 5.12.2005.
Held: The writ and statement of claim was struck out on the grounds the application was
made. The court also held that a power of attorney was an unauthorized person under
the Legal Profession Act 1976 and had no locus standi to commence the action.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision of the High Court and dismissed the
Plaintiffs appeal. The Plaintiff has since filed an application for leave to appeal to the
Federal Court.

NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED BY THE TORT AND STATUTORY DUTIES UNIT IN 2005
NO. TYPES OF CASES AMOUNT PERCENTAGE
1. Motor Accident 446 65.1%
2. Miscellaneous 161 23.5%
3. Cases concerning the police 44 6.4%
4. Road Transport Department 34 5%
69
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
The above chart shows that most of the cases handled by this Unit are motor accident
matters (65.1%). This is followed by miscellaneous cases (23.5%), cases concerning the
police (6.4%) and Road Transport Department case (5%).
NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED BY THE TORT AND STATUTORY DUTIES UNIT IN
2006

NO. TYPES OF CASES AMOUNT PERCENTAGE
1. Motor Accident 507 65.1%
2. Miscellaneous 201 25.8%
3. Cases concerning the police 39 5%
4. Road Transport Department 32 4.1%
CHART SHOWING TYPES OF CASES HANDLED BY THE TORT AND STATUTORY
DUTIES UNIT IN 2005
23.5%
6.4%
5.0%
65.1%
Motor accident
Police cases
Miscellaneous
Road Transport Department
70
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
The above chart shows that in 2006, most of the cases handled by this Unit are still motor
accident matters (65.1%). As in 2005, this is followed by miscellaneous cases (25.8%).
However, cases concerning the police (5.0%) and Road Transport Department (4.1%) has
seen a slight decrease.
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES IN 2005
NO. TYPES OF CASES AMOUNT PERCENTAGE
1. Cases brought forward from 2004 2869 70.3%
2. Files opened 685 16.9%
3. Files closed 526 12.9%
25.8%
5.0%
4.1%
65.1%
Motor accident
Police cases
Miscellaneous
Road Transport Department
CHART SHOWING TYPES OF CASES HANDLED BY THE TORT AND
STATUTORY DUTIES UNIT IN 2006
71
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
The above chart shows the percentage of cases handled by the Unit in 2005. There were
3522 cases handled by the Unit whereby 2869 cases were brought forward from 2004.
There were 653 new cases and the Unit has closed 526 cases.
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES IN 2006
NO. TYPES OF CASES AMOUNT PERCENTAGE
1. Cases brought forward from 2005 3028 67.9%
2. Files opened 779 17.5%
3. Files closed 654 14.6%
70.3%
16.8%
12.9%
Cases brought forward from 2004 Files opened Files closed
CHART OF PERCENTAGE TYPES OF CASES HANDLED BY
THE TORT AND STATUTORY DUTIES UNIT IN 2005
72
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
The above chart shows the percentage of cases handled by the Unit in 2006. There were
4461 cases handled by the Unit whereby 3028 cases were brought forward from 2005.
There were 779 new cases and the Unit has closed 654 cases. Compared to 2005, it can
be observed that in general, files opened are increasing.
17.5%
14.6%
67.9%
Cases brought forward from 2005 Files opened Files closed
CHART OF PERCENTAGE OF CASES HANDLED BY
THE TORT AND STATUTORY DUTIES UNIT IN 2006
73
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
ARBITRATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNIT
The Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Unit is a unit that is given the responsibility
to handle cases through the process of arbitration as one of the methods to resolve disputes
of contract as well as other alternative processes to resolve disputes and conflict, also known
as ADR. Generally, matters that are referred to this Unit relate to disputes or conflicts that
arise out of Government contracts/agreements that contains an Arbitration Clause.
Before 1990, Treasury and the Attorney Generals Chambers predicted an increase in
disputes involving building contracts. At the time, several cases have been filed against
the Government of Malaysia involving claims of millions of ringgit. Hence this Unit was
established specifically to handle cases of this nature. With this effort, a pool of expertise
was created to safeguard the Governments interest. Among the earlier cases filed were
The Arbitration case of Tobishima v Kerajaan Malaysia that involved a claim of RM56
million
The Arbitration case of Hoo Sheng Construction (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd. v Kerajaan
Malaysia that involved a claim of RM12 million
The Units scope is as follows:
giving legal advice to local authorities, engineers and quantity surveyors in Government
departments; legal advisors at various Ministries, States, Government bodies and
Municipal Councils regarding arbitration
bringing to court claims on behalf of the Government in construction cases
bringing claims on behalf of the Government in arbitration cases
defending the Government in arbitration case
MATTERS AND CASES REFERRED TO THE ARBITRATION UNIT
Matters that are referred to arbitration are amongst other things: maritime, insurance,
international finance, local and international trading, aviation agreements, building contract
disputes, and commodity supply contracts.
74
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Consultant Services
Contract (Design)
Non-Construction
Contracts
Miscellaneous Contracts
Proposal to build a trunk
road to Bakun Dam
Bakun Harbour
Construction of Institut
Latihan Kehakiman dan
Perundangan (ILKAP)
Contract to salvage
artifacts from a sunken
ship (The Diana) from
the bed of the Malacca
Straits
Supply Contract
(vehicles, uniforms, etc)
Contract to supply and
maintain aeroplane
engines
Construction of
aeroplanes
Construction of harbours
Construction of roads and
bridges
Construction of
Government Complexes
under various Ministries,
for e.g. TUDM Radar
Complex in Bukit Puteri,
Labuan
Works relating to
drainage and rivers
(Flood recuperation
projects in Sarawak and
Kelantan)
PERFORMANCE
Since its establishment in 1990, a total of 123 cases were registered at the Arbitration Unit
and out of that number one case was registered in 2005 while 8 were registered in 2006.
From this number, 89 cases have been settled with one in 2005 while 5 were settled in
2006. According to the records, the claims of contractors against the Government ranged
from RM250,000 to RM70 million. Claims/counterclaims by the Government on the other
hand ranged from RM500,000 to RM5 million.
Building
32
38
14
28
Construction
Engineering
Legal views
75
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Below is a case handled by Arbitration Unit with the International Affairs Division.
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF
INVESTMENT DISPUTES
CASE NUMBER ARB/05/10
BETWEEN
MALAYSIAN HISTORICAL SALVORS SDN BHD Claimant
AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA Respondent
The International Affairs Division and the Civil Division jointly conducted the above
arbitration proceedings assisted by two consultants, Dato Cecil Abraham and Dato
K.C.Vohrah.
Summary: On 30.9.2004, pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention on the Settlement of
Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention),
the Claimant filed its Request for Arbitration wherein the Claimant alleges that:
(a) The Respondent has confiscated the Claimants property;
(b) The Claimant has been denied the due process of law in Malaysia;
(c) The Claimants claim is justifiable under the Agreement between the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and the Government of Malaysia for the Promotion and Protection of
Investment (IGA); and
(d) The Claimant has exhausted all domestic remedies available in the
Federation of Malaysia prior to the filing of the Request for Arbitration
dated 30.9.2004.
The Claimant and the Respondent on 3.8.1991 entered into a Salvage Contract to
survey, identify, classify, research, restore, preserve, appraise, market, sell/auction and
carry out a scientific survey and salvage of the wreck and content of Diana. The
Salvage Contract was for a period of eighteen (18) months. The Contract was extended
to 3.6.1995.
On 3.6.1994 the Claimant completed the salvage works and the artifacts recovered
together with several tons of broken items were known as Shards. The artifacts were
then identified and an inventory of the said artifacts was prepared by the Claimant at
its shore base in Tanjung Bidara, Malacca.
On 22.9.1994 the Claimant, Respondent and Christies Amsterdam B.V. entered into an
Auction Contract. On 6.3.1995 and 7.3.1995 the auction took place in the Netherlands
and NLG4, 879,490 was raised. The Claimant alleges that prior to the commencement
of the auction, the Respondent withdrew 650 items from the auction on behalf of the
National Museum Department for the purposes of study and exhibition. By 3.7.1995, a
dispute had arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent.
76
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Pursuant to Clause 32.1 of the Salvage Contract the Claimant wrote a letter dated
12.7.1995 to the Director of the Marine Department, Malaysia giving Notice that a dispute
had arisen and requested the Respondent to choose one of two names proposed as
arbitrators. By letter dated 10.8.1995 the Respondent agreed to refer to arbitration but
did not agree to the names of the Arbitrators proposed.


The Claimant then proceeded to file an application in the Kuala Lumpur High Court
seeking for an order that the Court appoint a suitable arbitrator to conduct the arbitration
between the Claimant and the Respondent. On 27.5.1996, the Kuala Lumpur High
Court ordered by consent that the arbitration be settled in accordance with UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules 1976 and the Rules of the Regional Centre for Arbitration at Kuala
Lumpur (KLRCA Rules). In compliance with the above Court order, on 19.8.1996 the
Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA) appointed Mr. Justice (rtd) Richard
Talalla as the sole arbitrator.
On 27.9.1996 the Claimant commenced the arbitration proceedings in Malaysia pursuant to
Clause 32 of the Salvage Contract. On 2.7.1998 the Arbitrator dismissed the Claimants
claim.
On 11.8.1998 the Claimant filed an application in the Kuala Lumpur High Court to set
aside the Award or to remit the matter back to the Arbitrator pursuant to the provisions
of the Malaysian Arbitration Act 1952. On 4.2.1999 the Kuala Lumpur High Court
dismissed the Claimants application to set aside or to remit the arbitration award. No
Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal was ever lodged against the decision of the
Kuala Lumpur High Court.
The Claimant then filed a complaint alleging misconduct of the Arbitrator to an International
body known as the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London (CIAL). On 10.1.2001 the
CIAL dismissed the Claimants application for disciplinary action against the Arbitrator.
On 30.9.2004 the Claimant filed its request to commence arbitration proceedings under
the ICSID.
On 14.6.2005 the ICSID Secretariat registered the Claimants Request for Arbitration.
On 23.12.2005 the Respondent sent a Notice of Objection to Jurisdiction to the ICSID
Secretariat.
On 25.5.2006, the objection to jurisdiction was heard by the Arbitrator and the Respondent
submitted that the grounds in support of the objection against the jurisdiction and
competence of the Arbitral Tribunal were as followed:
(a) The Claimant and the claim do not fall within the scope of Article 25 of
the ICSID Convention and Article 7 of the IGA.
(b) The Claimants claim is not an investment under Article 1 of the IGA.
The Arbitrators decision on the objection to jurisdiction is pending.

77
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
EXECUTION & ENFORCEMENT UNIT (EEU)
The Execution & Enforcement Unit (EEU) was established in July 2003. The primary objective
of this Unit is to collect any costs awarded by courts and to execute any orders awarded
to the Malaysian Government/departments. EEU will take over all files from the Legal Unit
at the Ministries, the Civil Unit at the Federal Territory Branch and the Civil Unit at the
states, where costs are granted to or against the Government and cases where costs are
to be taxed by the court. It is the task of this Unit to trace and enforce judgments obtained
against government scholars.
The functions of this Unit are mainly-
To efficiently collect costs awarded by the courts to the Malaysian Government
To undertake civil actions against judgment debtors who fail to obey judgments
obtained by the Malaysian Government as the Judgment Creditor
CASES HANDLED BY THE EEU FROM 2003 TO 2006
Based on the above chart, EEU handles two major areas, namely the execution files and
the bill of costs files. Until December 2006, there are 1521 execution files and 284 bill of
costs files handled by this Unit.
16%
84%
EXECUTION
BILL OF COSTS
Cases Handled By The EEU From 2003 to 2006
78
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
VOLUME OF FILES HANDLED BY EEU FROM 2003 - 2006
Table 1
No. Files Amount
1. Outstanding cases from 2003 to 2006 1477
2. Files opened from 2003 to 2006 1805
3. Files closed from 2003 to 2006 542
Table 2
No. Files Amount
1. Files opened in 2005 221
2. Files closed in 2005 132
Table 3
No. Files Amount
1. Files opened in 2006 134
2. Files closed in 2006 111
Based on the tables above, there were 1477 outstanding cases from 2003 up to October
2006. There were 221 files opened in 2005 and 132 files closed. In 2006, 134 files were
opened and until December 2006, 111 files were successfully closed. The total number of
files closed between the periods of 2005 to 2006 is 542.
ACHIEVEMENT
Generally, the achievement of EEU is based on the successful collection of amount due
to the government. Since July 2003 till December 2006, EEU had succeeded in collecting
RM5,928,461.31. In 2005 alone, EEU has collected RM2,018,855.95 while the total collection
by EEU in 2006 is RM2,129,866.30.
The Civil Division has also collected revenue from other areas like the registration of public
notaries, tort cases and rental payment. In total, the Civil Division has collected revenue
amounting to RM3,682,359.98 in 2005 and RM4,575,560.26 in 2006.
350,000.00
2005 2006
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00
R
M
100,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
JAN
2005
2006
110,957.48
191,416.43
64,844.34
263,742.56
226,305.75
199,518.39
138,732.55
289,512.52
161,530.34
165,512.50
158,411.79
176,592.32
239,229.93
183,866.66
163,536.02
154,893.50
281,088.80
121,482.54
240,686.80
115,824.80 124,250.91 144,547.67
127,033.78 198,657.55
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
300,000.00
AMOUNT OF COLLECTION BY EEU IN 2005 AND 2006
AMOUNT OF COLLECTION BY EEU FROM 2005 TO 2006
YEAR
4,575,560.26
2006
3,682,359.98
2005
AMOUNT OF COLLECTION
AMOUNT
4,400,000.00
4,300,000.00
4,200,000.00
4,100,000.00
4,000,000.00
3,900,000.00
3,800,000.00
3,700,000.00
3,600,000.00
3,500,000.00
3,400,000.00
3,300,000.00
4,600,000.00
79
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
VOLUME OF FILES HANDLED BY EEU FROM 2003 - 2006
Table 1
No. Files Amount
1. Outstanding cases from 2003 to 2006 1477
2. Files opened from 2003 to 2006 1805
3. Files closed from 2003 to 2006 542
Table 2
No. Files Amount
1. Files opened in 2005 221
2. Files closed in 2005 132
Table 3
No. Files Amount
1. Files opened in 2006 134
2. Files closed in 2006 111
Based on the tables above, there were 1477 outstanding cases from 2003 up to October
2006. There were 221 files opened in 2005 and 132 files closed. In 2006, 134 files were
opened and until December 2006, 111 files were successfully closed. The total number of
files closed between the periods of 2005 to 2006 is 542.
ACHIEVEMENT
Generally, the achievement of EEU is based on the successful collection of amount due
to the government. Since July 2003 till December 2006, EEU had succeeded in collecting
RM5,928,461.31. In 2005 alone, EEU has collected RM2,018,855.95 while the total collection
by EEU in 2006 is RM2,129,866.30.
The Civil Division has also collected revenue from other areas like the registration of public
notaries, tort cases and rental payment. In total, the Civil Division has collected revenue
amounting to RM3,682,359.98 in 2005 and RM4,575,560.26 in 2006.
350,000.00
2005 2006
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00
R
M
100,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
JAN
2005
2006
110,957.48
191,416.43
64,844.34
263,742.56
226,305.75
199,518.39
138,732.55
289,512.52
161,530.34
165,512.50
158,411.79
176,592.32
239,229.93
183,866.66
163,536.02
154,893.50
281,088.80
121,482.54
240,686.80
115,824.80 124,250.91 144,547.67
127,033.78 198,657.55
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
300,000.00
AMOUNT OF COLLECTION BY EEU IN 2005 AND 2006
AMOUNT OF COLLECTION BY EEU FROM 2005 TO 2006
YEAR
4,575,560.26
2006
3,682,359.98
2005
AMOUNT OF COLLECTION
AMOUNT
4,400,000.00
4,300,000.00
4,200,000.00
4,100,000.00
4,000,000.00
3,900,000.00
3,800,000.00
3,700,000.00
3,600,000.00
3,500,000.00
3,400,000.00
3,300,000.00
4,600,000.00
YEAR
80
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Below is a highly publicised case handled by EEU
Kuala Lumpur High Court
D8-21-31-2006
Kerajaan Malaysia
-v-
Inventqjaya Sdn. Bhd.
(No. Syarikat : 603265-V)
A notice under section 218(2)(a) Companies Act 1965 dated 24 March 2006 was issued
to Inventqjaya Sdn. Bhd. (IQJ) for a payment of RM242,153,424.65 (inclusive of interest of
RM14,153,424.65 as at 24 March 2006) being the sum due and owing to the Petitioner pursuant
to a notice under clause 13.3 of the Loan Agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent
dated 18 June 2003, wherein the Respondent had: i) failed to increase the paid-up capital pursuant
to clauses 5.1(n)(3) and 11.1(q) of the Loan Agreement and, ii) made advances to Reveo Bangalore
India of RM553,464 using a portion of the loan amount disbursed under the Agreement contrary
to clauses 12.1(a) and 4 of the Loan Agreement.
On 25 April 2006, a winding-up petition was fled because IQJ failed to make payment and the
Respondents through Dr. Sadeq Mustafa Faris fled an affdavit opposing the said Petition on the
following grounds:
i. Notice of Motion for judicial review has been fled at the Kuala Lumpur High Court [Appellate
and Special Powers Division]
ii. The action taken by the Attorney General and Police pursuant to section 52 of the Anti-
Money Laundering Act 2001 to seize the entire business of the Respondent which included
the freezing of the HSBC account and the Maybank current account were unlawful
iii. The breach of the terms of the Loan Agreement was no fault of the Respondent
iv. The Respondent was not given a chance to rectify the breach
v. The seizure of the business of the Respondent and the freezing of its banking account
was based on an unfounded police report
vi. The payment out from the HSBC and Maybank account for salaries and other expenses
has reduced the amount
Government of Malaysia fled an affdavit and its contentions are as follows:
i. The Judicial Review did not relate to the Winding Up Petition
ii. Dr. Sadeq Mustafa Faris was not a majority shareholder in IQJ
iii. Dr. Sadeq Mustafa Faris was not appointed by IQJ to affrm an affdavit on its behalf
iv. All actions taken under Anti Money Laundering Act 2001 were lawful
v. The charges registered under Anti Money Laundering Act 2001 are against Dr. Sadeq
Mustafa Faris individually and not against IQJ
vi. IQJ is not insolvent and unable to pay its debts even after it received the 21 days notice
under section 218(2)(a) Companies Act 1965
Government of Malaysia later fled an additional affdavit to show that 3 charges were registered
in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court towards Dr. Sadeq Mustafa Faris and warrant of arrest has
been issued to show that Dr. Sadeq Mustafa has fed the country.
Held:
The winding up petition was allowed with costs by the court. The Respondents application for
Summon In Chambers for Stay of Winding Up Proceeding pending disposal of Judicial Review
was also dismissed.
IQJ has fled an appeal and a Notice of Motion for stay of execution of the winding up order in
the Court of Appeal.
81
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
STATE UNITS
Generally, a Federal Counsel administers the State Unit, except for the Federal Territory
Branch. The Federal Counsel concerned handles all civil cases by and against the Government
of Malaysia which are filed in the courts of the respective states. The administration and
management of cases by the Federal Counsel concerned is subject to orders and instructions
from the head quarters in Putrajaya. Currently, there are only seven (7) states that have
Federal Counsel.
The respective state Federal Counsel handles various civil cases ranging from road traffic
accidents, administrative law cases, wrongful detention, wrongful arrest, medical negligence
and also loan and scholarship matters.
KUALA LUMPUR
The Civil Unit in the Federal Territory has a different set up from other State Units. Unlike
other State Units which is singularly operated by a Federal Counsel, the Civil Unit in the
Federal Territory comes under the Federal Territory Branch and is operated by Senior
Federal Counsel and Federal Counsel. The Federal Territory Branch is headed by the Head
of Federal Territory Branch who handleds both civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the
Head of the Federal Territory Branch is assisted by the Civil Unit Head.
The Head of the Federal Territory Branch handles land acquisition and other land related
matters in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan whereas other civil cases
brought by or against the Government of Malaysia in all courts in Kuala Lumpur, Shah
Alam, Klang, Ampang and Selayang are handled by Senior Federal Counsel and Federal
Counsel.
The number of cases handled for 2005 and 2006 are shown below.
NUMBER OF CASES REGISTERED/CLOSED IN 2005
Cases carried forward from 2004 1609
Cases registered in 2005 851
Total number of cases in 2005 2460
Cases closed in 2005 427
Cases carried forward to 2006 2031
NUMBER OF CASES REGISTERED/CLOSED IN 2006
Cases carried forward from 2005 2031
Cases registered in 2006 as at 31.12.2006 641
Total number of cases in 2006 as at 31.12.2006 2672
Cases closed in 2006 as at 31.12.2006 511
Cases carried forward to 2006 as at 31.12.2006 2161
82
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
PERAK
In 2005, this unit received and opened 39 files while 28 files were resolved and closed. The
total number of cases handled by the state Federal Counsel as at the end of December
2006 is as tabled hereinunder:
No. TYPE OF CASE NUMBER
1. Road traffc accidents 83
2. Wrongful arrest, detention & assault 8
3. Youth loans 8
4. Medical negligence 12
5. Miscellaneous 14
6. Civil service 2
Total 127
KEDAH
In 2005, 58 files were successfully resolved and closed while the number of active files
until December 2006 is 82. The majority of cases handled by the Kedah Federal Counsel
relates to road traffic accident. The following is the table showing the total number of cases
handled by the Federal Counsel as at the end of December 2006.
No. TYPE OF CASE NUMBER
1. Road traffc accidents 49
2. Wrongful arrest/ detention 6
3. Youth loans 11
4. Medical Negligence 1
5. Civil Service 1
6. Contract 1
7. JKR projects 9
8. Appeal 4
Total 82
SARAWAK
The Federal Counsel in Sarawak has handled 54 cases in 2005 ranging from various
categories or type of cases. As at the end of December 2006, out of the total 54 cases,
15 were successfully resolved and closed leaving a remaining of 39 files still active.
83
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
No. TYPE OF CASE NUMBER
1. Road traffc accidents 10
2. Wrongful arrest/assault 14
3. Youth loans 2
4. Medical negligence 3
5. Miscellaneous 1
6. Civil service 3
7. Government loans 1
8. Contract 3
9. JPJ 2
Total 39
JOHOR
The Federal Counsel in Johor handled a rather large number of cases when compared
to the other state units. A total of 118 cases of various types are handled by the Federal
Counsel. The following is the table showing the cases handled:
No. TYPE OF CASE NUMBER
1. Road traffc accidents 64
2. Wrongful arrest, detention, assault 10
3. Youth loans 29
4. Miscellaneous 10
5. Contract 4
6. JPJ 1
Total 118
PAHANG
In 2005, a total of 17 files were resolved and closed while as at December 2006, the
number of active files is 62. Road traffic accident forms the bulk of cases handled by the
Federal Counsel. The table below shows the number of cases handled:
No. TYPE OF CASE NUMBER
1. Road traffc accidents 58
2. Youth loans 2
3. Personal claim 1
4. Medical negligence 1
Total 62
84
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
PENANG
In 2005, a total of 21 files were opened with 21 being closed. As with the other state units,
road accident cases formed the bulk of files handled. The following is the table showing
the cases handled.
No. TYPE OF CASE NUMBER
1. Road traffc accidents 20
2. Wrongful arrest/detention 7
3. Youth loans 2
4. Medical negligence 3
5. Miscellaneous / Administrative law 3
6. Civil Service 3
7. Civilian complaints 1
8. Scholarship agreements 1
9. Constitutional matters 1
10. JPJ 2
Total 43
ACTIVITIES
FILE DISPOSAL
The idea to execute the Civil Divisions file disposal/expiration project was forwarded by
the Head of Civil Division in early February 2005 as one of the projects relating to the
administration and management of the Civil Division for 2005. A working paper was presented
at the Strategic Planning Meeting at the Hotel Equatorial Bangi on 2123 March 2005 and
was approved by Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, the Attorney General of Malaysia.
After receiving the written approval from the Attorney General, this project which was called
Ops Lupus was executed on 20 May 2005.
Several briefing sessions were held with the Malaysian National Archives to assist in the
preparation of a proper strategy and format for this project. This is a mandatory requirement
to ensure that the Civil Division is acting within the limits of the Pekeliling Perkhidmatan
(Service Directions) and the National Archives Act 2003 [Act 511].
This was a mega project by the Civil Division for 2005 and all Civil Division offcers and staff were
actively involved during its execution.
85
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Objectives
The objectives of this project have been identified as follows:
To overcome the problem of congestion in the file room
To expedite file searching and to save time and energy in searching for files
To ensure the accurate statistics of number of active and non-active files are kept.
This project is the first of its kind by Civil Division and it involved voluminous records and
files that date as far back as the 1950s.
This project was created out of the necessity to reduce congestion in the file room as well
as achieving part of the Civil Divisions vision in administration before moving to the new
building in 2007.
Project Strategy
In the early stages, the Civil Division had decided that the Ops Lupus project would
determine which files shall be destroyed and which files to be disposed at a later stage.
Files that are to be disposed off at a later stage are files that will be destroyed after a
lapse of period which will be determined by the Civil Division.
With the approval of the Attorney General, the record officer and the record clerk for the
Division and each unit were appointed and each will receive a certificate of appointment
by the National Archives Head Director.
Subsequently, the stages in the project for files that have been categorized for destruction
or disposal are as follows:
Process of removing files from the file room
Process of sorting files according to codes
Process of examining and recording of files
Process of boxing files according to the serial number and codes
Process of getting authorization and preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding
from the Malaysian National Archives
Process of physically destroying the files
Process of removing files from the file room
This process begins only after the files have been identified as inactive and categorized
to be destroyed.
Process of sorting files according to their codes
Files that have been removed will be collected and then sorted according to codes as well
as their respective Units.
Process of examining and recording of files
Every file identified for destruction or disposal at a later stage will be examined thoroughly
and then recorded. Subsequently, the files will be categorized for destruction, disposal
or to be kept until the Records Disposal/Expiration Schedule (Jadual Pelupusan Rekod
Bahagian) has been decided.
86
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Process of boxing files according to serial number and codes
Once the files have been sorted out according to serial numbers and codes, they were
then tied up and placed in marked boxes.
Process of getting authorization and preparation of a memorandum of agreement
from the Malaysian National Archives
A series of meetings were held between the Civil Division and the Malaysian National
Archives. During a meeting on 16 September 2005, the Civil Division Committee for Record
Disposal/Expiration determined the categories of records and files to be destroyed, kept in
Chambers or the National Archives as well as the storage period and destruction process
of each record. The meeting resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the
Head of the Civil Division and the Director of the Malaysian National Archives.
The agreed Civil Division Record Disposal/Expiration Schedule (Jadual Pelupusan Rekod
Bahagian Guaman) was intended to ease the destruction and storage of records and files
that are regarded as functional record.
Process of physically destroying the files
Finally, on 5 December 2005, Ops Lupus was successfully executed with the destruction
of files that were approved by the Malaysian National Archives.
Conclusion
With the cooperation and effort put in by all in the Division, the examination and sorting
of file were completed in only 2 months as opposed to the estimated 6 months. File
destruction was also completed ahead of schedule i.e in only 6 months and not a full year
as earlier estimated.
With the consistent involvement of as many as 45 support staff in carrying out Ops Lupus,
the expenses incurred amounted to RM44,850.46 while a total of RM4,065.00 was spent
on food and drinks.
The records and files relating to Election Petitions and Constitutional issues were sent to
the Attorney Generals Chambers Special Research Unit for microfiching and subsequently
to be transferred into DVD format.
The total number of files successfully destroyed during the Ops Lupus is 26,827 files.
As a token of appreciation for all the hard work and effort of Civil Divisions members in
ensuring the success of this project a day of fun and games was held on 20 August 2005
at Wetland Park, Putrajaya.
87
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
A training session called Continuing Legal Education (Beginners Series) was held over a
period of 3 months to expose the Divisions junior officers to issues that Federal Counsel
should be aware of.
Lectures were held from 4 August 2005 till 24 November 2005 in the Civil Division and
were well attended by officers from the division. Topics covered were on Preliminary Issues,
Costs, Proceedings in Respect of Persons Under Disability, Drafting Pleading Statement
of Claim, Drafting Pleadings Defence, Judicial Review, Case Management, Arbitration
(Overview), Interlocutory Application Amendment, Interlocutory Application Striking Out,
Execution Process, Vicarious Liability section 5 and section 6 Government Proceedings
Act 1956 and Public Authorities Protection Act 1948.
In May 2006, the Committee extended the lectures conducted for the Continuing Legal
Education (Beginners Series) in the headquarters to the Wilayah Persekutuan Branch
officers.
The Civil Division then started the Continuing Legal Education (Intermediate Series) at
the headquarters on 26 January 2006. The first lecture was delivered by the Head of the
Government Contracts and Medical Negligence Unit on the Conduct of Medico - Legal Cases
in Court. The Head of Division delivered the second lecture on Judicial Review in Executive
Decisions. The Committee plans to conduct lectures in this series in the afternoons after
each of the Divisions Quarterly Meeting.
On 25 January 2006 and 20 June 2006, the Committee organized training series for the
Divisions staff to standardize official letters, cabinet papers and documents issued by the
Civil Division.
DIVISION MEETING
The Civil Division had its meeting on the 12-14 December 2005 at City Bayview Hotel, Penang.
The object of the meeting was to plan a strategy to enhance the efficiency of the registration
and management of files in the division. 34 officers attended the meeting. Each of the
5 units had a brainstorming session and presented their ideas at the end of the
meeting.
For 2006, the Civil Divisions Meeting was held at Riviera Bay Resort Malacca from
3 - 6 December 2006. This meeting was officiated by the Attorney General. A series of
discussions and brainstorming sessions were held to further improve and enhance the
management of the Division. A motivational talk was also given to boost positive values
among the officers.
88
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
DIVISION CONFERENCE
The Divisions 2005 Conference was held at Holiday Inn Resort Damai Lagoon, Santubong,
Sarawak from 22

- 25 June 2005. The conference was also attended by officers of the
Industrial Court, Housing Claims Tribunal, Consumer Claims Tribunal and the Co-operatives
Tribunal. The theme was Team Building and to achieve this objective lectures and team
building activities were held.
For 2006, the Civil Divisions Conference was held at Kg. Tok Senik Resort, Langkawi,
Kedah from 4 - 7July 2006. The conference was also attended by officers of the Industrial
Court, Housing Claims Tribunal, Consumer Claims Tribunal and the Co-operatives Tribunal.
Representatives from the aforesaid Tribunals gave lectures to provide the participants with
a better understanding of their scope of work. Apart from lecture sessions, team building
activities were also conducted to enhance teamwork in the Civil Division.
INSPECTION
Inspection teams headed by the Deputy Heads of the Civil Division carried out inspections
in seven states, namely Pahang (1819

April 2005); Sarawak (3031

May 2005); Johor
(67

October 2005); Penang (2526

October 2005); Terengganu (67

December 2005);
Kedah (1820

December 2005) and Perak (2223

December 2005). The inspection to
Perlis was cancelled due to floods.
The inspection was a complete exercise pertaining to the following matters:
the file registry (opening and closing of files)
the docket system
the office and officers court diaries
form for going out of office
movement of officers on the notice board
case status report
monthly reports
file administration (file cover and file contents)
case management
facilities
89
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

S

C
H
A
M
B
E
R
S

M
A
L
A
Y
S
I
A
R
E
P
O
R
T

2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
6
Every file was inspected for file administration and case management in the presence of
the case officerPahang (60); Sarawak (41); Johor (100); Penang (47); Terengganu (29);
Kedah (88) and Perak (127). Directions were immediately minuted in the file for the officers
further action and rectification.
The officers concerns, staffing, training needs for the officer and supporting staff, personal
computer facilities were also inquired into and noted. Overall the files and cases were
well managed and the Head of Civil Divisions Directions were complied with. Areas of
concern and that which needed to be improved were conveyed to the respective officers
in a meeting at the end of each inspection.
BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS
The Civil Division has its own tradition wherein officers and staff birthdays are celebrated
each month. This celebration is also sometimes organized in conjunction with the celebration
for officers or staff who are promoted or transferred. Celebrations such as these have been
known to improve the relationship and working environments between staff and officers.
FAMILY DAY
Family Day celebration is the much awaited and anticipated annual event. This is the time
when officers and staff get together to have fun and enjoy a good time with their families
and colleagues.