Latest news with #CollinLawrenceSequerah
Malay Mail
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Who's who if AGC proceeds with committal proceedings against senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 1 — In the case of Lokman Noor Adam v AG v Lokman Noor Adam [2020], the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had issued Lokman Noor Adam with a notice to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken against him for, allegedly, threatening a witness in an ongoing criminal trial both in a video interview he had given and in a police report he had lodged. It was alleged that Lokman's actions also constituted a threat to other witnesses coming forward to testify at the trial. Following the expiry of the show cause notice, the Attorney General (AG) successfully obtained an ex parte order of court granting him leave to commence committal proceedings against Lokman. Lokman applied to set aside the order, raising various arguments including that: (a) only the court had the power/jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under Order 52 rule 2B of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) and not the MACC; and (b) the show cause notice was not a step by step procedure but should have been issued together or simultaneously with the AG's ex parte leave application. High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah (as he then was) dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte leave order. The learned judge ruled as follows: (1) In committal proceedings under Order 52 ROC, the court is only invoked at the stage when application for leave to file committal proceedings is made under Order 52 rule 3 ROC. Accordingly, the notice to show cause under rule 2B may be issued by a party other than the court itself. (2) The procedure from rule 2B onwards is intended to be a step by step procedure. The notice to show cause under rule 2B has to be served first before application to court for leave to commence committal proceedings was made under rule 3. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned High Court judge, Lokman appealed to the Court of Appeal (COA). The COA heard lengthy submissions, took the view that there were no merits in the appeal and that there were no appealable errors. COA judge Ahmad Nasfy, who delivered the judgement of the court, said: 'The High Court was correct to reach the conclusion that rule 2B pertains to the step by step process in securing leave.... [P]rior to leave, notice must be given to the proposed contemnor an opportunity to show cause and that service of the notice must be effected personally... [T]he interpretation [of rule 2B] by the learned High Court judge is correct [with] which we agree. 'The learned High Court judge had correctly dismissed the application to set aside the order granting leave. Therefore, we unanimously dismissed this appeal.' Guess who the opposing counsels were before the COA. They were Muhammad Shafee Abdullah for Lokman and Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar for the AG. The latter is the current AG. Now, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has been reported to have given Shafee Abdullah seven days to explain remarks he made likening a court proceeding to 'a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing', which the AGC claims amounts to contempt of court. The seven days to explain is in a show-cause notice reportedly sighted by the New Straits Times. The notice is a step by step procedure under rule 2B above which has to be served first before application to court for leave to commence committal proceedings is made under rule 3 of Order 52 ROC. If the AGC proceeds with committal proceedings, it will pit Dusuki against Shafee not as counsels but as applicant against alleged contemnor. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malaysiakini
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Muslim convert loses appeal to restore birth name on identity card
A 50-year-old Muslim convert has failed in his appeal to compel the National Registration Department (NRD) to reinstate his birth name on his identity card. The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel comprising judges Supang Lian, Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Alwi Abdul Wahab, upheld the High Court's dismissal of his judicial review application. Delivering the court's judgment...
The Sun
30-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Appeals Court rejects Hydroshoppe, Menara KL injunction appeal
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal by the former operator of the Kuala Lumpur Tower and its subsidiary to obtain an ad interim injunction to stop the award of the KL Tower concession to LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd. The decision was delivered by a three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, Datuk Dr Choo Kah Sing and Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh. Justice Sequerah, who delivered the court's unanimous decision, said Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd and its subsidiary Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of an ad interim injunction. 'We are of the view that there is no status quo to maintain as the fifth supplementary agreement has lapsed on March 31, this year,' he said. Justice Sequerah ordered Hydroshoppe and Menara KL to pay legal costs totalling RM30,000 to the respondents. The respondents were the Ministry of Communications, its minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, the government, LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd, LSH Best Builders Sdn Bhd and Service Master (M) Sdn Bhd. The appeal was against the decision of the High Court in April, this year which had similarly dismissed the application for the ad interim injunction. Hydroshoppe and Menara KL had filed a breach of contract suit against the respondents, claiming that LSH and its units had induced a breach of contract that the companies (Hydroshoppe and Menara KL) had agreed to with the government in an Aug 2022 meeting. They claimed that LSH Capital and its units had committed dishonest assistance, and want the award of the KL Tower concession to LSH Service Master to be declared void and unlawful. They are also claiming an estimated RM1 billion in damages, and for the concession of the iconic Kuala Lumpur landmark building to be transferred back to them. The High Court will hear the interparte injunction on June 9. It will also hear on June 5, an ex parte contempt application filed by the companies. In the proceedings before the Court of Appeal today, lawyer Vinayak Sri Ram represented Hydroshoppe and Menara Kuala Lumpur, Senior Federal Counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly@Arwi for the Ministry of Communications, Fahmi and the government. Lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar represented LSH Service Master, LSH Best Builders and Service Master.
The Sun
30-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Appeals Court dismisses appeal by Hydroshoppe, Menara KL for ad interim injunction
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal by the former operator of the Kuala Lumpur Tower and its subsidiary to obtain an ad interim injunction to stop the award of the KL Tower concession to LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd. The decision was delivered by a three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, Datuk Dr Choo Kah Sing and Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh. Justice Sequerah, who delivered the court's unanimous decision, said Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd and its subsidiary Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of an ad interim injunction. 'We are of the view that there is no status quo to maintain as the fifth supplementary agreement has lapsed on March 31, this year,' he said. Justice Sequerah ordered Hydroshoppe and Menara KL to pay legal costs totalling RM30,000 to the respondents. The respondents were the Ministry of Communications, its minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, the government, LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd, LSH Best Builders Sdn Bhd and Service Master (M) Sdn Bhd. The appeal was against the decision of the High Court in April, this year which had similarly dismissed the application for the ad interim injunction. Hydroshoppe and Menara KL had filed a breach of contract suit against the respondents, claiming that LSH and its units had induced a breach of contract that the companies (Hydroshoppe and Menara KL) had agreed to with the government in an Aug 2022 meeting. They claimed that LSH Capital and its units had committed dishonest assistance, and want the award of the KL Tower concession to LSH Service Master to be declared void and unlawful. They are also claiming an estimated RM1 billion in damages, and for the concession of the iconic Kuala Lumpur landmark building to be transferred back to them. The High Court will hear the interparte injunction on June 9. It will also hear on June 5, an ex parte contempt application filed by the companies. In the proceedings before the Court of Appeal today, lawyer Vinayak Sri Ram represented Hydroshoppe and Menara Kuala Lumpur, Senior Federal Counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly@Arwi for the Ministry of Communications, Fahmi and the government. Lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar represented LSH Service Master, LSH Best Builders and Service Master.
Barnama
30-05-2025
- Business
- Barnama
Appeals Court Dismisses Appeal By Hydroshoppe, Menara KL For Ad Interim Injunction
PUTRAJAYA, May 30 (Bernama) -- The Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal by the former operator of the Kuala Lumpur Tower and its subsidiary to obtain an ad interim injunction to stop the award of the KL Tower concession to LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd. The decision was delivered by a three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, Datuk Dr Choo Kah Sing and Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh. Justice Sequerah, who delivered the court's unanimous decision, said Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd and its subsidiary Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of an ad interim injunction. 'We are of the view that there is no status quo to maintain as the fifth supplementary agreement has lapsed on March 31, this year,' he said. Justice Sequerah ordered Hydroshoppe and Menara KL to pay legal costs totalling RM30,000 to the respondents. The respondents were the Ministry of Communications, its minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, the government, LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd, LSH Best Builders Sdn Bhd and Service Master (M) Sdn Bhd. The appeal was against the decision of the High Court in April, this year which had similarly dismissed the application for the ad interim injunction. Hydroshoppe and Menara KL had filed a breach of contract suit against the respondents, claiming that LSH and its units had induced a breach of contract that the companies (Hydroshoppe and Menara KL) had agreed to with the government in an Aug 2022 meeting. They claimed that LSH Capital and its units had committed dishonest assistance, and want the award of the KL Tower concession to LSH Service Master to be declared void and unlawful.
