A warning from Dutch justices- Acknowledgement of traditional custodians and paying respects to elders past and present and emerging can cost you

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

   

                   Gough Whitlam symbolically returning land to Aboriginals. Many consider this gesture to be symbolic, but the High Court current and future might see it differently

These words mark the beginning of most if not all meetings, gatherings and other events in Australia :

'I begin today by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we <gather/meet> today, and pay my respects to their Elders past and present. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here today.'

Often the acknowledgement is extended to include leaders or elders emerging. Most say it without any realisation or fear that they might, possibly be eroding their own property rights "of the land of which 9they) gather", but as a recent decision of a Dutch court has shown, CSR and similar decorations can be used to undermine previously  recognised legal rights.

In the case of G-Star RAW and a supplier form Vietnam, G-Str's reliance on a standard  force majeure clause was rejected by a Dutch court which relied on, amongst other things, G-Star RAW's CSR decelerations. 

Australian courts are not bound by Dutch decisions but it is not unlikely that Australian judges determining any matter  will look to foreign judgements to justify their own desires to give legal force to concepts such as climate change, native land rights and other issues that have traditionally been outside the purview of the Australian common law. 

It is therefore not unlikely that at some point in the future, the acknowledgements of country and the paying of respects to elders past  present and emerging will be accepted or referred to as evidence that the legal owners intended  their  property rights to be subordinate or in any case never superior to claims by the so-called traditional owners. 

The 2019 High Court decision in the Timber Creek case could well provide the basis for the calculation of compensation. 

END 

Reference 

A Dutch court may have created a contractual duty to be nice, caring and nurturing , by reliance on a CSR ,sustainability declaration. The decision in G-Star RAW  illustrates the legal minefield corporations are creating for themselves by wanting to be woke, or at least seen as woke



According to Apparel Insider:
The court ordered fashion brand G-Star to compensate a Vietnamese supplier for a breach of contract which caused the factory to close during the pandemic.
In a potentially precedent-setting case, the court referred to G-Star’s own sustainability policies in handing down the decision as well as its membership of Better Buying – a platform which (allegedly) encourages improved purchasing practices by fashion brands.

The Vietnamese factory was forced to close during the pandemic after G-Star cancelled orders despite previously making purchasing commitments.

Upcoming European Union regulations such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive will mean brands become more accountable for the negative effects of poor purchasing practices.

Many brands were citing force majeure clauses during the pandemic to excuse cancelled orders.

G-Star made a (relatively large) offer to the supplier during the dispute, but to no avail.

Court rules against G-Star in supplier dispute - Apparel Insider

apparelinsider.com • 1 min read

Anwar Ibrahim's dilemma - How to reward MPs, Senators at taxpayers expense despite Art 48 (1) of the Constitution -"a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if he holds an office of profit"

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

            Anthony Loke and Anwar Ibrahim -Loke's explanation does not help Anwar

Malaysia, led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, is again agonising over the issue of MPs and Senators being appointed to the boards of government linked companies despite the prohibition clearly stated in Article 48 (1)(c) of the Malaysian Constitution: 

48. (1) (c) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament i f he holds an office of profit;

The degree of confusuion within the current administration is well described in this recent attempt to explain and clarify , the Transport Minister Anthony Loke: 

“In terms of appointment of politicians, we separate between statutory bodies and GLC. We do not agree to put politicians in GLC listed in Bursa Malaysia such Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), Telekom Malaysia Bhd (TM) and Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB).

“Those appointed now are not in such companies (GLC) but in statutory bodies, authorities and so on.

They are regulatory bodies. Do not involved business and so on,” he said.

Loke, like his predecessors in the previous administration, appears to believe that "profit" means what one might earn, for example, from running a hawker stall. That is clearly not the case and the term covers any form of remuneration.  

TO BE READ WITH 

Sunday, May 31, 2020

Malaysia's new constitutional crisis -MPs appointed to the boards of GLCs are disqualified from being MPs; dissolution of Parliament now unavoidable

by Ganesh Sahathevan




  Malaysia's King Abdullah Of Pahang cannot avoid  the matter 
of the legitimacy of his Government.
                                     

Malaysia may be at the brink of a constitutional crisis that has arisen as a result of the appointment of a number of ruling Perikatan Nasional (PN) Members Of Parliament to the boards of government linked companies (GLCs). The appointments have resulted in the MPs holding offices for profit, thus disqualifying them as MPs.

All but nine of the PN's 112 (or more)  MPs are said to have been appointed to GLC boards, some as chairmen, and there have been demands from at least one component party, UMNO, that all MPs be appointed to such positions.
However, in making these appointments, which are widely regarded as a meanss of consolidating his position, PN leader, the Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, seems to have neglected the convention, if not rule, that an  MP  cannot hold an office of profit.

Holding an office of profit is a reason  for disqualification from holding office as an MP.  Given the numbers involved it is difficult to see how a dissolution of Malaysia's Parliament can be avoided.

First, the convention:

While it is true that Malaysian politics, while rooted in the Westminster system, is often played out according to its own peculiar rules, the  current situation where MPs are also on the boards of GLCs raises obvious conflicts of interest; Parliament and its members are  after all meant  to oversee the administration of GLCs. This can include scrutinising GLC  finances, and their management.
Where required MPs may have to pass or review legislation that regulates the structure , management and business operations of GLCs.  Clearly, all this would not be objectively possible if the MPs are also on the boards of those GLCs.

Then , the rule, as stated in the Malaysian Constitution:

Disqualification for membership of Parliament 

48. (1) (c) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament i f he holds an office of profit;

The matter of disqualification of a member asa result of holding "an office of profit" has not arisen in Malaysia so no cases on the matter have been located. However, the matter has been discussed and debated extensively in other Commonwealth countries. , including the UK, Australia and India.

Importantly, the Malaysian case is somewhat obvious; that of a prime minister appointing MPs loyal to him to positions at companies he controls, and will continue to control for so long as he has their support.

It is difficult to see how the King can now avoid the fact that his Government must be dissolved.

END

Australia's proposed constitutional amendments may cost Malaysian, Singaporean, others invested in Australian property half of freehold value in extinguished native title compensation - Leading Australian tax firm outlines the problems (but says landowners should be mature enough to pay the price)

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Australia's proposed consitutional amendments may cost  Malaysian, Singaporean, others invested in Australian property half of freehold value in extinguished native title  compensation - Leading Australian tax firm outlines the problems (but says landowners should be mature enough to pay the price)

Australians are being asked to consider amendments, described as The Voice,  to their Commonwealth constitution similar to Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, Malaysia, from which the special Bumiputera rights derive.  

The beneficiaries in the Australian case are its Aboriginals , who can already claim native title over  much of Australia. That title can be the basis of compensation and other monetary claims, under exisiting laws (even if the claims are  not yet widespread). 

The leading Melbourne tax law firm, Arnold Bloch Leibler explained in an op-ed published in 2019 how a decision of the High Court recognised that Aborigines were entitled to compensation for their extinguished native title, calculated in that case to be half of freehold value.  The firm is also a leading  proponent of the proposed consitutional amendments, and has said in effect that paying compensation s the right, mature thing to do (see article below).

All this however can mean that  Malaysians, Singaporeans and  others invested in Australian property may soon be liable to pay  half of freehold value in extinguished native title  compensation. The Voice constitutional  amendments if passed into law are likely to mean more claims for compensation, and quite likely, a more streamlined, formal process for the payment of compensation. 

To Be Read With  

Friday, April 14, 2023

Arnold Bloch Leibler said in 2019 that landmark High Court decision awarding substantial compensation for extinguished native title " shouldn't inspire land title fearmongering"- Senior partner Mark Leibler is today one of the most vocal supporters of The Voice referendum , scolds Australians for being afraid, but has been silent about the consequences for all Australians who can be subject to native title compensation claims that could equal or exceed half of freehold value

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

                                                                      

                                            Mark Leibler, "In Support Of A Voice"

In 2019 Bridgid Cowling , a senior associate in the native title practice at Arnold Bloch Leibler wrote an op-ed published in The SMH where she explained how the High Court had provided a framework for assessing extinguished native title compensation claims, and had determined that compensation ought to be half of the freehold value.

She ended by declaring: 

Twenty-seven years after the Mabo decision and 23 after the Wik decision, surely now is the time for us to bury that old chestnut in the compost heap of useless scaremongering.

Let us be the civil society that the High Court of Australia believes us to be – an Australia that accepts the compensation as appropriate, fair and just, and celebrates the decision as a clear, positive way forward for the nation.

 Today, in 2023, the senior partner and. founder of that firm, Mark Leibler, has taken to public fora to lecture Australians on the error they will make if they vote to reject The Voice referendum. Instead of scolding  Australians for being afraid, he ought to explain the  consequences for all Australians who can be subject to native title compensation claims. 

To Be Read Wth 

OPINION

Timber Creek decision shouldn't inspire land title fearmongering

By Bridgid Cowling

March 21, 2019 — 11.11pm

One of my first tasks as an intern with the Northern Land Council was to source an interpreter for the Timber Creek native title case of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples.

As English is not their first language, they needed an interpreter to communicate their connection to country to the judge, and help the claimants and the legal system to understand one another.

Michael Murrimal of Timber Creek at the Gregory National Park in the Victoria River Region in the Northern Territory.

Michael Murrimal of Timber Creek at the Gregory National Park in the Victoria River Region in the Northern Territory. GLENN CAMPBELL

Fourteen years on (20 since the native title claim was first lodged), the High Court of Australia has not only understood and recognised the native title rights of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali peoples, it has found an elegant way to understand the impact of the extinguishment of those rights, and to put a dollar figure on it.

It has valued native title rights and translated the loss of connection caused by extinguishment into financial compensation.

The decision

The High Court decision in Timber Creek is a relatively uncontroversial decision that clinically interprets the compensation provisions of the Native Title Act and plainly applies the common law.

The High Court has given us a clear process for assessing compensation: What are the native title rights and interests? What acts have extinguished native title? What is just compensation as required by the Native Title Act?

The compensation will comprise the economic value of native title rights and interests that have been extinguished, plus an amount for additional, non-economic or cultural loss caused by the diminution of the native title holders’ connection to country.

In the Timber Creek case, the economic value of the non-exclusive native title rights and interests was 50 per cent of the freehold value of the land. This amounted to $320,250, with an additional amount of $910,100 interest on that sum. The award for cultural loss was $1.3 million.

What now?

Each compensation decision will be unique, dependent on the acts of extinguishment, the native title rights and interests that are extinguished, and the specific impact on the native title holders themselves. State legislation will be relevant to the analysis of the extinguishment and compensation. As the High Court emphasised, there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

There is also no magical economic analysis that can be undertaken by extrapolating the financial compensation award in Timber Creek to accurately estimate a total bill for compensation payable under the Native Title Act. Such a suggestion – and there have been many of them in the wake of the decision – should be viewed with extreme caution.

So too should statements that native title holders around the country will be inspired by the Timber Creek decision to make a flood of compensation claims. Those with long enough memories will remember that we’ve experienced this kind of unwarranted hysteria before. When native title was first, and belatedly, recognised by the High Court in 1992, "back yards are under threat" fearmongering abounded. Thankfully we’ve moved on as a country since those dark days.

Native title holders and their advisers have been working with the Native Title Act and its compensation regime for years now. If there has been a delay in making compensation claims before the courts, it is because claim groups are busy responding to future act notices, negotiating agreements and proving their native title.

It is also because, responsibly, many will have held off until there was clear guidance from the courts. As the High Court recognised in its judgement, the resources of native title claimants are limited.

The Timber Creek decision does not usher in any new law. It is a conservative judgment and extremely helpful.

As the first High Court decision of its kind, it provides much-needed guidance on a valuation process and on how the courts will approach compensation claims. Native title holders, proponents, governments and lawyers advising them will be much better able to negotiate in good faith, and accurately assess what is fair compensation.

The decision is not remotely surprising. Nor is it in any way radical. Responsible governments and proponents have been preparing for this day for decades.

Any suggestion that they have been caught unawares speaks either to poor planning or, more likely, to a disingenuous attempt to employ the “bucket loads of extinguishment” politics of fear that we saw after the 1996 Wik Decision, in which the High Court found that native title could co-exist with pastoral leases. An unworthy response that set back the cause of reconciliation by a decade or more.

Over the past 20 years, every significant reasonable gain in Aboriginal land and sea rights has been met with a corresponding outcry that the recognition of rights will be detrimental to business and/or is, for some other reason, unjust.

Twenty-seven years after the Mabo decision and 23 after the Wik decision, surely now is the time for us to bury that old chestnut in the compost heap of useless scaremongering.

Let us be the civil society that the High Court of Australia believes us to be – an Australia that accepts the compensation as appropriate, fair and just, and celebrates the decision as a clear, positive way forward for the nation.

Bridgid Cowling is a senior associate in the native title practice at Arnold Bloch Leibler

https://www.smh.com.au/national/timber-creek-decision-shouldn-t-inspire-land-title-fearmongering-20190321-p5166m.html

Arnold Bloch Leibler said in 2019 that landmark High Court decision awarding substantial compensation for extinguished native title " shouldn't inspire land title fearmongering"- Senior partner Mark Leibler is today one of the most vocal supporters of The Voice referendum , scolds Australians for being afraid, but has been silent about the consequences for all Australians who can be subject to native title compensation claims that could equal or exceed half of freehold value

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

                                                                      

                                            Mark Leibler, "In Support Of A Voice"

In 2019 Bridgid Cowling , a senior associate in the native title practice at Arnold Bloch Leibler wrote an op-ed published in The SMH where she explained how the High Court had provided a framework for assessing extinguished native title compensation claims, and had determined that compensation ought to be half of the freehold value.

She ended by declaring: 

Twenty-seven years after the Mabo decision and 23 after the Wik decision, surely now is the time for us to bury that old chestnut in the compost heap of useless scaremongering.

Let us be the civil society that the High Court of Australia believes us to be – an Australia that accepts the compensation as appropriate, fair and just, and celebrates the decision as a clear, positive way forward for the nation.

 Today, in 2023, the senior partner and. founder of that firm, Mark Leibler, has taken to public fora to lecture Australians on the error they will make if they vote to reject The Voice referendum. Instead of scolding  Australians for being afraid, he ought to explain the  consequences for all Australians who can be subject to native title compensation claims. 

To Be Read Wth 

OPINION

Timber Creek decision shouldn't inspire land title fearmongering

By Bridgid Cowling

March 21, 2019 — 11.11pm

One of my first tasks as an intern with the Northern Land Council was to source an interpreter for the Timber Creek native title case of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples.

As English is not their first language, they needed an interpreter to communicate their connection to country to the judge, and help the claimants and the legal system to understand one another.

Michael Murrimal of Timber Creek at the Gregory National Park in the Victoria River Region in the Northern Territory.

Michael Murrimal of Timber Creek at the Gregory National Park in the Victoria River Region in the Northern Territory. GLENN CAMPBELL

Fourteen years on (20 since the native title claim was first lodged), the High Court of Australia has not only understood and recognised the native title rights of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali peoples, it has found an elegant way to understand the impact of the extinguishment of those rights, and to put a dollar figure on it.

It has valued native title rights and translated the loss of connection caused by extinguishment into financial compensation.

The decision

The High Court decision in Timber Creek is a relatively uncontroversial decision that clinically interprets the compensation provisions of the Native Title Act and plainly applies the common law.

The High Court has given us a clear process for assessing compensation: What are the native title rights and interests? What acts have extinguished native title? What is just compensation as required by the Native Title Act?

The compensation will comprise the economic value of native title rights and interests that have been extinguished, plus an amount for additional, non-economic or cultural loss caused by the diminution of the native title holders’ connection to country.

In the Timber Creek case, the economic value of the non-exclusive native title rights and interests was 50 per cent of the freehold value of the land. This amounted to $320,250, with an additional amount of $910,100 interest on that sum. The award for cultural loss was $1.3 million.

What now?

Each compensation decision will be unique, dependent on the acts of extinguishment, the native title rights and interests that are extinguished, and the specific impact on the native title holders themselves. State legislation will be relevant to the analysis of the extinguishment and compensation. As the High Court emphasised, there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

There is also no magical economic analysis that can be undertaken by extrapolating the financial compensation award in Timber Creek to accurately estimate a total bill for compensation payable under the Native Title Act. Such a suggestion – and there have been many of them in the wake of the decision – should be viewed with extreme caution.

So too should statements that native title holders around the country will be inspired by the Timber Creek decision to make a flood of compensation claims. Those with long enough memories will remember that we’ve experienced this kind of unwarranted hysteria before. When native title was first, and belatedly, recognised by the High Court in 1992, "back yards are under threat" fearmongering abounded. Thankfully we’ve moved on as a country since those dark days.

Native title holders and their advisers have been working with the Native Title Act and its compensation regime for years now. If there has been a delay in making compensation claims before the courts, it is because claim groups are busy responding to future act notices, negotiating agreements and proving their native title.

It is also because, responsibly, many will have held off until there was clear guidance from the courts. As the High Court recognised in its judgement, the resources of native title claimants are limited.

The Timber Creek decision does not usher in any new law. It is a conservative judgment and extremely helpful.

As the first High Court decision of its kind, it provides much-needed guidance on a valuation process and on how the courts will approach compensation claims. Native title holders, proponents, governments and lawyers advising them will be much better able to negotiate in good faith, and accurately assess what is fair compensation.

The decision is not remotely surprising. Nor is it in any way radical. Responsible governments and proponents have been preparing for this day for decades.

Any suggestion that they have been caught unawares speaks either to poor planning or, more likely, to a disingenuous attempt to employ the “bucket loads of extinguishment” politics of fear that we saw after the 1996 Wik Decision, in which the High Court found that native title could co-exist with pastoral leases. An unworthy response that set back the cause of reconciliation by a decade or more.

Over the past 20 years, every significant reasonable gain in Aboriginal land and sea rights has been met with a corresponding outcry that the recognition of rights will be detrimental to business and/or is, for some other reason, unjust.

Twenty-seven years after the Mabo decision and 23 after the Wik decision, surely now is the time for us to bury that old chestnut in the compost heap of useless scaremongering.

Let us be the civil society that the High Court of Australia believes us to be – an Australia that accepts the compensation as appropriate, fair and just, and celebrates the decision as a clear, positive way forward for the nation.

Bridgid Cowling is a senior associate in the native title practice at Arnold Bloch Leibler

https://www.smh.com.au/national/timber-creek-decision-shouldn-t-inspire-land-title-fearmongering-20190321-p5166m.html

Australia's "College Of Law Asia" conducted business in Malaysia without being incorporated in Malaysia (or anywhere else), before it disappeared in mid 2019 - "College Of Law Asia" is attempting to re-enter the Malaysian market with the assistance of FMM; previous failed venture with Bar Council Malaysia remains a mystery

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                              

                                           College Of Law CEO Neville Carter

It has been previously reported that  Australia's College Of Law is attempting  to re-enter the  Malaysian market with the assistance of FMM but meanwhile the closure of its office in Malaysia in 2019 remains unexplained and false claims about its contribution to Malaysian legal practise persist.

On that previous failed attempt "College Of Law Asia" and its parent College Of Law Ltd attempted to carry  on a business in Malaysia in defiance of Malaysia's laws which require that a branch or subsidiary be incorporated in Malaysia.

Questions about that apparent illegality and other matters addressed to their director in Malaysia, Peter Tritt, by this writer, remain unanswered. Tritt closed shop and left Malaysia following his refusal to answer without any explanation. 

To Be Read With 

Sunday, June 21, 2020

College Of Law documents show how College operates in Malaysia without a corporate structure ; JV with Bar Council the primary responsibility of then president, now judicial commissioner George Varghese

by Ganesh Sahathevan

YA Tuan George Varughese

YA Tuan George Varughese

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang

Dilantik sebagai Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman pada 28 November 2019

(Click to enlarge) 

It has been previously reported here that The Bar Council -College Of Law LLM lacked a physical presence which in turn raised tax and MIDA regulatory issues. The nature of the College's operations worldwide can now be shown in the diagram above , which is located at the this link on the College's website: https://www.collaw.edu.au/-/media/col/au_files/downloads-and-forms/about/corporate-governance/college-of-law-corporate-and-academic-committee-structure-as-june-2019.pdf

(See diagram above-click to enlarge).

The College Of Law Asia, or College Of Law Asia Pacific, which was supposed to be headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, does not appear anywhere in its 2019 annual report.

The College Of Law-Bar Council JV was entered into when YA George Varghese (photo above) was  chairman of the Bar Council . He refused to answer queries about the JV and about claims made by the College about its contributions to  legal education in Malaysia, going back to the 1980s. Those claims have been refuted by UiTM, and the Federal Court Registry.

TO BE READ WITH 

Bar Council education ‘JV’ must be clarified

By Editor , in Scandal on July 19, 2019 . Tagged width: College of Law , Fareed Gafoor , Malaysian Bar

KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.

The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.

The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.

NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:

Dear Rajen,

We can’t remain silent on this.

Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor

Sent from my iPad

It is understood that “Rajen” refers to  Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.

The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.

Key person suddenly retired during extensive query

The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.

It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.

Questionable advertising claims?

In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.

Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.

He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of  “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.

As CEO of the College Carter  has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.

Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.

-NMT

Sunday, June 21, 2020

College Of Law documents show how College operates in Malaysia without a corporate structure ; JV with Bar Council the primary responsibility of then president, now judicial commissioner George Varghese

by Ganesh Sahathevan

YA Tuan George Varughese

YA Tuan George Varughese

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang

Dilantik sebagai Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman pada 28 November 2019

(Click to enlarge) 

It has been previously reported here that The Bar Council -College Of Law LLM lacked a physical presence which in turn raised tax and MIDA regulatory issues. The nature of the College's operations worldwide can now be shown in the diagram above , which is located at the this link on the College's website: https://www.collaw.edu.au/-/media/col/au_files/downloads-and-forms/about/corporate-governance/college-of-law-corporate-and-academic-committee-structure-as-june-2019.pdf

(See diagram above-click to enlarge).

The College Of Law Asia, or College Of Law Asia Pacific, which was supposed to be headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, does not appear anywhere in its 2019 annual report.

The College Of Law-Bar Council JV was entered into when YA George Varghese (photo above) was  chairman of the Bar Council . He refused to answer queries about the JV and about claims made by the College about its contributions to  legal education in Malaysia, going back to the 1980s. Those claims have been refuted by UiTM, and the Federal Court Registry.

TO BE READ WITH 

Bar Council education ‘JV’ must be clarified

By Editor , in Scandal on July 19, 2019 . Tagged width: College of Law , Fareed Gafoor , Malaysian Bar

KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.

The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.

The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.

NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:

Dear Rajen,

We can’t remain silent on this.

Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor

Sent from my iPad

It is understood that “Rajen” refers to  Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.

The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.

Key person suddenly retired during extensive query

The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.

It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.

Questionable advertising claims?

In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.

Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.

He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of  “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.

As CEO of the College Carter  has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.

Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.

-NMT