Where rights of parties are to be finally determined in a particular application, an affidavit may not contain hearsay evidence  

In Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 AMR 105 [COA], the Court of Appeal held that the general rule under Order 41 r 5(1) RHC 1980 is that where the rights of parties are to be finally determined in a particular application, an affidavit may only contain such facts as the deponent was able to his own knowledge to prove.  

Whether the Industrial Court can choose to depart from the Industrial Court Practice Note No 1 of 1987  

In Telekom Malaysia Berhad v Ramli bin Akim [2008] 1 AMR 274 [COA], the Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Court had chosen to depart from the general practice under the Industrial Court Practice Note No 1 of 1987 (which limits the award of backwages to 24 months) without justifiable circumstances to warrant its departure. The Court further held that future loss of earnings has never been an established and recognised head of damage in the Industrial Court, save for the case of R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia [1997] 1 AMR 433, which was an exceptional case. This Court also observed that in Koperasi Serbaguna Sanya Bhd. Sabah v Dr James Alfred, Sabah & Anor [2000] 3 AMR 3493, the Court of Appeal had ruled that in industrial law involving compensation for unfair dismissal, there are only 2 types of compensation, which is backwages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement. That decision was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Court in Dr James Alfred v Koperasi Serbaguna Sanya Bhd, Sabah & Anor [2001] 4 AMR 4225.

Popular posts from this blog

Law updates - Insurance (Malaysian law unless otherwise stated)

Law updates - General (Malaysian law unless otherwise stated)

What are the available remedies to a purchaser when he is given a defective house out of time by the seller developer?