Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ROAD TRAFFIC – DUTY OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ROAD TRANSPORT

Illustrative scenario:

X acquired a pre-owned vehicle, successfully registering it under his name in 2020 after completing all necessary formalities, including payment, insurance, and road tax. Following the registration, the Road Transport Department conducted a standard inspection and issued a ‘Sijil Pemilikan Kenderaan’ to X.

A year later, X was summoned for an investigative meeting by the Director General of Road Transport, during which he was informed that the vehicle was identified as a clone at the time of its registration by X and would be seized under Section 64 of the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA). (“RTA”).

It was revealed that the vehicle had been reported stolen in 2018, with its engine and chassis numbers altered. This critical information, however, was not recorded in the Road Transport Department’s registry due to the absence of legal mandates or guidelines for blacklisting vehicles upon receiving such complaints.

The crux of the matter is determining whether the Director of Road Transport neglected statutory responsibilities by allowing the registration of such a vehicle and its operation on public roads.

Legal Framework and Implications:

  • Section 8 of the RTA mandates the Director General of Road Transport to maintain a comprehensive registry of all motor vehicles within his jurisdiction, detailing the format and information as periodically directed by the Director General.
  • Upon receiving reports of vehicle cloning or tampering, it is incumbent upon the Director General to implement measures alerting potential buyers within the registry to prevent ownership transfers during ongoing investigations.
  • In this scenario, the failure to update the vehicle’s status in the registry, thus allowing its purchase and registration by X, constitutes a breach of statutory duty by the Director General of Road Transport.

Reference Cases:

  • Dr Hema a/p Thiyagu v. Pengarah Pengangkutan Jalan, Negeri Pulau Pinang & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 31
  • Federal Court in case of Pengarah Jabatan Pengangkutan Negeri Selangor & Ors v. Sin Yoong Min [2015] 1 MLH 1
  • Pendaftar dan Pemeriksa Kereta-Kereta Motor, Melaka & Ors v. KS South Motor Sdn Bhd [2000] 2 MLJ 540; [2000] 2 CLJ 57
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

CHARTERPARTY AGREEMENTS – CHARTERER’S GUIDE TO FOULING CLAUSES

In maritime charterparty agreements, fouling clauses outline who is responsible for the costs and time associated with hull cleaning when marine organisms accumulate due to specific operating conditions. These clauses are crucial for clarifying liabilities, particularly when charterers operate in warm, bio-rich waters or leave vessels idle, as fouling can significantly impact performance and fuel efficiency. Understanding the scope of a fouling clause helps charterers navigate potential costs and ensure clear terms for post-redelivery responsibilities, as highlighted in cases like The “Globe Danae” [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 309.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami