Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 12 of 2016

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 12 of 2016
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 12 of 2016

    By admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 8 January, 2017 | 0

    Trespass – Whether inspection on restaurant premises is lawful or conducted with mala fide (bad intention).

    Case:

    JMJ Food & Beverages Sdn Bhd v Mohamad Zukrillah Ismail & Ors [2016] 4 CLJ 368

    Brief Facts:

    • The JMJ Food and Beverages [JMJ] was the owner of a restaurant known as the Tandoor Grill (‘the restaurant’), a non-halal restaurant as it served alcoholic drinks as well.
    • The ingredients used for cooking, however, were sourced from certified halal suppliers.
    • JMJ displayed a banner on the wall of the restaurant which stated that from 10 July 2013 to 7 August 2013, it would be serving Ramadhan buffet and brochures to this effect were made avail-able to customers.
    • Following a letter of complaint received by the Jabatan Agama Islam Perak (‘JAIPk’) in relation to the halal status of the restaurant, a raid was conducted on 24 July 2013.
    • The inspection was conducted by three government agencies including the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumerism, JAIPk and the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (‘JAKIM’) [AGENCIES].
    • The brochures and the banner advertising about the Ramadhan buffet were seized from the restaurant.
    • The AGENCIES asserted that since it did not possess a halal certificate, the banner and the bro-chures were likely to mislead or confuse Muslims into thinking that the restaurant was somehow halal.
    • The entire raid/operation was televised and screened. The owner of the restaurant was investi-gated and subsequently prosecuted for an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (‘the Act’).
    • The prosecution was successful and JMJ then appealed.
    • The issues for consideration in this appeal were;i. whether the AGENCIES had trespassed into JMJ’s restaurant; and ii. whether the inspection was carried out mala fide where the AGENCIES entry and pres-ence amounted to trespass.

    Decision: JMJs Appeal Dismissed

    • There was no unjustifiable intrusion by the AGENCIES as they had entered the restaurant under the legal power conferred by the Trade Descriptions Act 2011.
    • The words reflected in the banner and brochures, and offered in the month of Ramadhan would definitely attract Muslim patrons, thus implying that the food served was halal when in fact the restaurant was certified as a non-halal outlet.
    • As there were possibilities of confusion that could arise from JMJ’s act, the AGENCIES had a stat-utory duty to conduct further investigation as provided under the Trade Descriptions Act 2011.
    • Therefore, the inspection was done on valid grounds and on the exercise of a function under the Act.
    • Although JMJ had argued that the AGENCIES knew of the halal/non halal status of the restaurant, there is still a necessity to confirm it by the best evidence of physical inspection of the restaurant before any action could be taken.
    • Thus, the AGENCIES could not be accused of committing trespass since the inspection was car-ried out in accordance with the law.
    • In addition, JMJ carries the burden to prove mala fide. JMJ would have to show improper or bad motive to succeed.
    • JMJ had questioned the issue of the necessity to carry out the inspection during the peak lunch hour and the presence of the large number of media personnel during the inspection. However, these two factors do not suffice as mala fide.

    No tags.

    admin

    https://t.me/pump_upp

    More posts by admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil