High Court to decide on Iking's seduction case

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/22edr/Article/index_html/12/10

KUALA LUMPUR: Businessman Choy Khin Ming, who allegedly enticed television host Daphne Iking, wants to refer seven constitutional issues to the High Court.Among the issues are:

- whether Section 498 of the Penal Code is an unequal law as it imposes criminal liability on the male party only and is therefore in breach of Article 8 (1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution over equality;

- whether the section is inherently discriminatory of the male sex as it criminalises the conduct of the male party in a joint and/or consensual act involving a female party and is therefore gender discriminatory under the same article;

- whether the section carries an inherently unreasonable classification as it is predicated on the pre-modernistic assumption that women are mere chattels and incapable of a rational choice as to their male companionship; and

- whether the section achieves the unreasonable object of consigning a woman to the custody of a man whom she no longer wishes to reside or consort with as her husband.

At the magistrate's court yesterday, his counsel Jagjit Singh, submitted that Choy disputed the constitutional validity of the section.

"The issues have a direct bearing on the constitutional legality of the present proceedings, and are just and appropriate for reference and determination by the High Court," he said.

The application to refer the issues to the High Court was filed on Monday.

On April 17, Iking's husband Chong Yiing Yih, 31, also a businessman, initiated a private summons against Choy under Section 498 of the Penal Code for "enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman".

Choy was charged with enticing Iking, knowing that she was a married woman, with the intention of having sexual intercourse.

He allegedly committed the offence at a condominium unit in Taman Tun Dr Ismail between July 2007 and September last year.

Jagjit applied for a stay of the proceedings at the magistrate's court pending the disposal of the issues at the High Court. The High Court has yet to fix the date to hear the matter.

He also applied for the record of proceedings to be transmitted to the High Court.

Magistrate Zaki Asyraf Zubir allowed the applications.

Also pending at the High Court is Choy's appeal against magistrate Mohd Faizi Che Abu's decision dismissing his application to have the case heard before a different magistrate.

Choy had claimed that Faizi hearing the matter would be prejudicial to him as he had earlier granted the sanction for private prosecution.

Faizi has since been transferred to the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya.

The appeal is fixed for case management on Dec 17.

Counsel Wong Kian Kheong is leading the prosecution team on behalf of the celebrity's husband after the Attorney-General's Chambers declined to prosecute.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/8/21/courts/4561412&sec=courts

`Seek remedy in Industrial Court'

2010/03/04

V. Anbalagan

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ruled that a dismissed employee can only seek remedy in the Industrial Court.The appellate court unanimously dismissed former maintenance supervisor K.

Gunalan's appeal against the decision of the High Court to strike out his summons and statement of claim for unfair or constructive dismissal. Court of Appeal judge Datuk Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha, who sat with Datuk Zainun Ali and Datuk Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad, said industrial disputes like unlawful dismissal should be referred to the Industrial Court. The court, however, did not give any reason for dismissing Gunalan's appeal.

Gunalan filed the action in the High Court in 2001 against his employer Nortel Networks Malaysia Sdn Bhd.

Earlier, counsel Jennifer Thomas, who appeared for Gunalan, submitted that judicial commissioner Datuk Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin was wrong in striking out the suit as his client could also turn to the civil court to get remedy for loss of job. She said Section 86 of the Employment Act 1955 stated that an aggrieved employee could enforce his civil rights in court by way of filing a suit provided that no action had been instituted before the director-general of Industrial Relations. Lawyer A.

Selvamalar, who represented Nortel Networks, said the High Court was right in striking out the suit as the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Court of Appeal yesterday heard Gunalan's appeal without the benefit of written grounds from the High Court which struck out Gunalan's matter in 2004.

In his statement of claim, Gunalan said he was terminated by Nortel Networks on Oct 24, 2001, due to "realignment in our workforce". He filed his action in December 2001 seeking damages for loss of employment. Gunalan told reporters that he had instructed his counsel to file an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court as there were questions of public importance.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/20100304102704/Article/index_html

group exercise

Facts: Due to a rampant robbery in which the robbers used ski mask to cover their faces, the Cyberjaya Authority issued a regulation that makes it illegal to sell ski masks. as a safety measure, the rule also makes it illegal for anyone to offer for sale the ski masks. In spite of this , Messy has not cleared the the ski masks from the shelves of his sport equipment shop in Cyberia. The authority officials came to know about this and later on charged Messy under the new regulation

Held: Messy was not suppose to be charged in this case. according to "Contracts Act 1950" & the case Fisher v. Bell. Messy was only doing invitation to treat but not an offer. for example. if the Author came to Messy's shop and asked to buy the ski mask. then this is an offer from the Author to buy the mask, but we still don't have an acceptance, which means there are no contract yet to be charged of. but if Messy were to accept the Author's offer to buy the mask. then in this case Messy should be charged under the new regulation.