Latest news with #SupangLian
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Health
- Free Malaysia Today
Hospital wins appeal to stop ex-nurse from suing for negligence
A three-member Court of Appeal bench said there were already two Federal Court judgments on the matter, and lower courts were bound by these rulings. PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has ruled that an ex-nurse cannot sue her former employer over an injury for which she has been compensated under the Employees' Social Security (Perkeso) Act. A three-member bench chaired by Justice Supang Lian ruled that Section 31 of the Act prevents M Thaneswary, 39, from taking legal action against Thomson Hospital Sdn Bhd for damages as she had already received compensation under the Act. The court said the provision is a complete bar against civil suits for employment-related injuries, except in cases involving motor vehicle accidents. Supang said there were already two Federal Court judgments on the matter, and lower courts were bound by these rulings. 'We set aside the High Court's ruling and reinstate the sessions court's decision,' she said. The court also ordered RM3,000 in costs, as agreed by both parties. The other judges on the bench were Justices Choo Kah Sing and Alwi Abdul Wahab. Thaneswary, 39, joined Thomson Hospital in August 2016. Two months into the job, she injured her back after falling onto a trolley loaded with files. She received compensation for medical expenses through Perkeso in 2017, and filed a negligence suit against the hospital in September 2022. The sessions court struck out the case, citing Section 31 of the Perkeso Act. The High Court later reversed that decision, prompting the hospital's appeal. Section 31 states that an employee who sustains employment injury is barred from pursuing damages under any other law, except for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident. Lawyers T Tharmarajah and Amos Siew represented Thomson Hospital while Thaneswary was represented by lawyer Bani Prakash.
Malaysiakini
5 days ago
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Court: EC's decision to bar Johor voter under Covid-19 quarantine unlawful
The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Election Commission's (EC) decision to bar a registered voter from casting his ballot in the 2022 Johor state election due to Covid-19 quarantine restrictions was unlawful. A three-member bench comprising Supang Lian, Wong Kian Kheong, and Ismail Brahim held that the EC had violated R K Tamileswaaran's constitutional right to vote under...
Malaysiakini
5 days ago
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Court: EC's decision to bar Johor voter under Covid-19 quarantine unlawful
The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Election Commission's (EC) decision to bar a registered voter from casting his ballot in the 2022 Johor state election due to Covid-19 quarantine restrictions was unlawful. A three-member bench comprising Supang Lian, Wong Kian Kheong, and Ismail Brahim held that the EC had violated R K Tamileswaaran's constitutional right to vote under...
New Straits Times
6 days ago
- Business
- New Straits Times
Court upholds RM1.04mil award against lift contractor over faulty work at Johor school
PUTRAJAYA: A lift contractor has failed in its bid to overturn a High Court decision ordering it to pay RM1,045,294.80 in damages to an international school over delayed and defective lift works at its Johor Baru campus. A three-member Court of Appeal bench, chaired by Datuk Supang Lian, unanimously dismissed MS Elevators Engineering Sdn Bhd's appeal, finding no merit in its challenge against the earlier decision in favour of Fairview International School Nusajaya Sdn Bhd. The other members of the bench were Datuk Azmi Ariffin and Datuk Ismail Brahim. In the judgement dated yesterday, Azmi said MS Elevators had breached its contract and failed to deliver functional and safe lifts by the stipulated deadline of Feb 28, 2015. According to court documents, the school had awarded MS Elevators a RM566,000 contract in July 2014 for the supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of three lifts at its Johor Baru campus. Under the Letter of Award (LOA), the contractor was required to complete the work within six months, with a liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) clause of RM10,000 per day for any delay. However, the lifts were only certified by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) on June 2, 2015 — 94 days after the deadline — and were subsequently found unsafe. Incidents included schoolchildren being trapped in a lift and dignitaries being forced to walk up seven floors during school events. The court ruled that the school was entitled to LAD amounting to RM940,000 and RM70,294.80 in rectification costs incurred when third-party contractors were hired to repair and make the lifts safe for use. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision to award a nominal sum of RM35,000 for loss of student intake due to the unavailability of the upper floors. The appellate court held that MS Elevators had no legal basis to suspend works or refuse to rectify the defects unless payments were made, noting that no valid payment certification had been issued by the project consultants. The court also dismissed the company's counterclaim for RM387,908.60 for alleged outstanding payments, citing its failure to complete works as per the contract or obtain proper certification. In affirming the High Court's findings, the Court of Appeal emphasised that MS Elevators had neither applied for a valid extension of time nor complied with the contractual procedures. "There was no written notice given by the company to seek an extension of time. "They had the contractual right to do so if they believed the school's actions or omissions had caused delays. "The company cannot now turn around and blame the school for its unwarranted delay. "The defendant must live with the consequences of its fault," the court said. The court also awarded RM25,000 in costs to the school.
Malaysian Reserve
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Malaysian Reserve
Muslim convert loses appeal to restore birth name on identity card
PUTRAJAYA — 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 Justices Datuk Supang Lian, Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Datuk Dr Alwi Abdul Wahab, upheld the High Court's dismissal of his judicial review application. Delivering the court's judgment, Justice Sequerah held that Regulation 14(2A) of the National Registration Regulations 1990 does not permit the reversion to the original name once a new name has been lawfully assumed. 'The name change is made because the person making the application has absolutely renounced and abandoned the use of his original name and assumed a new name,' he said, adding that the law envisages a change of name but not a reversion to the original name. He stated that the court was of the view that there are compelling public policy considerations as to why the law permits a change of name but does not contemplate a reversion to the original name once a new name has been lawfully adopted. The 28-page grounds of judgment dated yesterday were uploaded to the judiciary's website today. The man, who embraced Islam in 2005 and adopted a Muslim name following his conversion, claimed he was denied entry into India in 2016 despite travelling with a Malaysian passport bearing his Muslim name. He claimed Indian immigration authorities refused entry on the grounds that he had previously entered the country under his original Hindu name, resulting in his deportation to Malaysia. He then applied for a new passport using his birth name, but the application was rejected by the Immigration Department as his identity card still bore his Muslim name. Subsequently, he applied to have his current name in his identity card changed back to his original name, but the application was rejected by the NRD director-general in December 2021. This led to him filing for a judicial review in the High Court, naming the NRD director-general and the Government of Malaysia as respondents, seeking a mandamus order compelling the NRD to amend and re-register his birth name in his identity card. He argued that he faced complications arising from the presence of two different names in his previous passport, which led to his denial of entry into India. He further submitted that he owns immovable properties abroad registered under his original name, which may give rise to confusion when dealing with foreign authorities due to the inconsistencies between the names in his identity card, passport and other official documents. The NRD director-general maintained that the application could not be approved under Regulation 14(2A) of the National Registration Regulations 1990, which does not permit a reversion to a name that has been lawfully renounced. On Nov 20, 2023, the High Court dismissed the man's judicial review application, upholding the NRD's decision to reject the request for a name amendment. — BERNAMA
