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

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami