Kenduri Walimatulurus Anak Besan

Pada 18 Februari 2018, bertempat di Bizmilla, Subang Jaya, diadakan kenduri walimatulurus besan saya, sdra Zolkarnain. Meriah sungguh acara tersebut. Alhamdulillah...

Kursus Transformasi Pengurusan Dokumen

Pada 14 februari 2018, pihak Pusat Transformasi insan USM Pulau Pinang menjemput saya mengendlikan kursus/bengkel berjodol TRANSFORMASI PENGURUSAN DOKUMEN. Alhamdulillah kursus/bengkel berjalan dengan jayanya.

HONG KONG: WHO OWNS EMPLOYEES’ WORK PRODUCT

26 OCTOBER, 2017 · 10:32 AM

HONG KONG: WHO OWNS EMPLOYEES’ WORK PRODUCT

The law recognises that employees may create valuable intellectual property during their employment, ownership of which should ordinarily rest with their employer. The recent case of Acron International Technology Ltd v Chan Yiu Wai[2017] 3 HKLRD 799 demonstrates how the law can protect an employer’s rights in respect of such intellectual property from misappropriation by an employee after the employment relationship ends.

Legal framework

This case involved a claim under section 57 of the Patents Ordinance (PO), which relevantly provides that an invention by an employee shall be taken to belong to his/her employer if it was made in the course of the normal duties of the employee and in circumstances where an invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of the employee’s duties.

Section 14 of the Copyright Ordinance and section 3(3) of the Registered Designs Ordinance similarly clarify that an employer will be treated as the first owner of the rights in work product of its employees created in the course of employment, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

The background

Acron International Technology Ltd (Acron) brought proceedings against two former employees over a patent they had secured sometime after their employment ended (the PRC Patent). The invention which was the subject of the PRC Patent was very similar to an invention patented by Acron in 2002, albeit that it had been “fine-tuned” after the pair left their employment and applied for the PRC Patent.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge at first instance that the invention over which the PRC Patent had been granted did in fact belong to Acron pursuant to section 57 of the PO, as it was made in the normal course of the defendants’ duties when employed by Acron’s, in circumstances where an invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of their duties. The fact that it had been further developed by way of “fine-tuning” did not alter that fact.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal upheld the orders requiring (among other things) that:

1.    the employees assign to Acron the PRC Patent; and

2.    Acron repay the employees the cost of applying for and maintaining the PRC Patent.

In doing so the Court clarified that, for section 57 of the PO to apply, it was not necessary for the employer to show that the particular invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of the employee’s duties, only that an invention might reasonably be expected. By way of comparison, the Court explained that the employer of a hypothetical research chemist who had been engaged for 10 years to work on a cancer cure but instead came up with a cure for arthritis would still be entitled to any intellectual property rights arising from that work, notwithstanding that the employee’s day to day work was to find a cancer cure. This is because his duty as a research chemist is broader than his day to day work.

Key takeaways

This decision demonstrates the extent to which the law will protect employers in respect of the misappropriation of intellectual property created by employees during the course of their employment, and the remedies that may be available. It also demonstrates the need for employers to anticipate the possibility of intellectual property being created and to take steps to ensure that employee’s duties are properly and accurately defined so as to come within the scope of such protection. Employers might also consider including provisions in the employment contract confirming their ownership of intellectual property created during the employment to avoid any argument that a contrary agreement had been made.

HARAM HUKUMNYA SEORANG MUSLIM MERAYAKAN TAHUN BARU

Oleh: Ustaz K.H. M Shiddiq Al Jawi (Pensyarah STEI Hamfara Yogyakarta, Indonesia)_

Tanya:

Ustaz, bolehkah seorang muslim ikut merayakan tahun baru?

Jawab:

Perayaan tahun baru Masehi (new year’s day, al ihtifal bi rasi as sanah) bukan hari raya umat Islam, melainkan hari raya kaum kafir, khususnya kaum Nashrani. Penetapan 1 Januari sebagai tahun baru yang awalnya diresmikan Kaisar Romawi Julius Caesar (tahun 46 SM), diresmikan ulang oleh pemimpin tertinggi Katolik, yaitu Paus Gregorius XII tahun 1582. Penetapan ini kemudian diadopsi oleh hampir seluruh negara Eropa Barat yang Kristian sebelum mereka mengadopsi kalendar Gregorian tahun 1752. (www.en.wikipedia.org; www.history.com)

Bentuk perayaannya di Barat bermacam-macam, baik berupa ibadah seperti layanan ibadah di gereja (church servives), maupun aktivitas non-ibadah, seperti parade/karnaval, menikmati berbagai hiburan (entertaintment), berolahraga seperti hockey es dan American football (rugby), menikmati makanan tradisional, berkumpul dengan keluarga (family time), dan lain-lain. (www.en.wikipedia.org).

Berdasarkan manath (fakta hukum) tersebut, haram hukumnya seorang muslim ikut-ikutan merayakan tahun baru Masehi. Dalil keharamannya ada 2 (dua); Pertama, dalil umum yang mengharamkan kaum muslimin menyerupai kaum kafir (tasyabbuh bi al kuffaar). Kedua, dalil khusus yang mengharamkan kaum muslimin merayakan hari raya kaum kafir (tasyabbuh bi al kuffaar fi a’yaadihim).

Dalil umum yang mengharamkan menyerupai kaum kafir antara lain firman Allah SWT (artinya) : “Hai orang-orang yang beriman, janganlah kamu katakan (kepada Muhammad) ‘Raa’ina’ tetapi katakanlah ‘Unzhurna’ dan ‘dengarlah’. Dan bagi orang-orang kafir siksaan yang pedih.” (QS Al Baqarah: 104).

Imam Ibnu Katsir menafsirkan ayat ini dengan mengatakan Allah SWT telah melarang orang-orang yang beriman untuk menyerupai orang-orang kafir dalam ucapan dan perbuatan mereka. Karena orang Yahudi menggumamkan kata ‘ru’uunah’ (bodoh sekali) sebagai ejekan kepada Rasulullah SAW seakan-akan mereka mengucapkan ‘raa’ina’ (perhatikanlah kami). (Tafsir Ibnu Katsir, 1/149).

Ayat-ayat yang semakna ini banyak, antara lain QS Al Baqarah : 120, QS Al Baqarah : 145; QS Ali ‘Imran : 156, QS Al Hasyr: 19; QS Al Jatsiyah : 18-19; dll (Al Mausu’ah Al Fiqhiyyah, 12/7; Wail Zhawahiri Salamah, At Tasyabbuh Qawa’iduhu wa Dhawabituhu, hlm. 4-7; Mazhahir At Tasyabbuh bil Kuffar fi Al ‘Ashr Al Hadits, hlm. 28-34).

Dalil umum lainnya sabda Rasulullah SAW, “Barangsiapa yang menyerupai suatu kaum, maka ia termasuk golongan mereka.” (HR Ahmad, 5/20; Abu Dawud no 403). Imam Ibnu Hajar Al Asqalani mengatakan sanad hadits ini hasan. (Fathul Bari, 10/271).

Hadits tersebut telah mengharamkan umat Islam menyerupai kaum kafir dalam hal-hal yang menjadi ciri khas kekafiran mereka (fi khasha`ishihim), seperti aqidah dan ibadah mereka, hari raya mereka, pakaian khas mereka, cara hidup mereka, dll. (Al Mausu’ah Al Fiqhiyyah, 12/7; Ali bin Ibrahim ‘Ajjin, Mukhalafatul Kuffar fi As sunnah An Nabawiyyah, hlm. 22-23).

Selain dalil umum, terdapat dalil khusus yang mengharamkan kaum muslimin merayakan hari raya kaum kafir. Dari Anas RA, dia berkata, "Rasulullah SAW datang ke kota Madinah, sedang mereka (umat Islam) mempunyai dua hari yang mereka gunakan untuk bermain-main. Rasulullah SAW bertanya, 'Apakah dua hari ini?’ Mereka menjawab, 'Dahulu kami bermain-main pada dua hari itu pada masa Jahiliyyah.’ Rasulullah SAW bersabda, 'Sesungguhnya Allah telah mengganti dua hari itu dengan yang lebih baik, yaitu Idul Fitri dan Idul Adha.” (HR Abu Dawud, no 1134). Hadits ini dengan jelas telah melarang kaum muslimin untuk merayakan hari raya kaum kafir. (Ali bin Ibrahim ‘Ajjin, Mukhalafatul Kuffar fi As sunnah An Nabawiyyah, hlm. 173).

Berdasarkan dalil-dalil di atas, haram hukumnya seorang muslim merayakan tahun baru, misalnya dengan meniup terompet, menyalakan kembang api, menunggu detik-detik pergantian tahun, memberi ucapan selamat tahun baru, makan-makan, dan sebagainya. Semuanya haram karena termasuk menyerupai kaum kafir _(tasyabuh bil kuffar)_ yang telah diharamkan Islam.

Pertolongan Al-Quran di Alam Kubur

Dari Sa’id bin Sulaim ra, Rasulullah Shallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam bersabda (bermaksud):

"Tiada penolong yg lebih utama darjatnya di sisi Allah pada hari Kiamat daripada Al-Qur’an. Bukan nabi, bukan malaikat dan bukan pula yang lainnya.” (Abdul Malik bin Habib-Syarah Ihya)

Al Bazzar meriwayatkan dalam kitab La’aali Masnunah bahwa jika seseorang meninggal dunia, ketika orang–orang sibuk dengan kain kafan dan persiapan pengebumian di rumahnya, tiba -tiba seseorang yang sangat tampan berdiri di kepala mayat. Ketika kain kafan mulai dipakaikan, dia berada di antara dada dan kain kafan. Setelah dikuburkan dan orang–orang mulai meninggalkannya, datanglah 2 malaikat. Yaitu Malaikat Munkar dan Nakir yang berusaha memisahkan orang tampan itu dari mayat agar memudahkan tanya jawab.Tetapi si tampan itu berkata: 

”Ia adalah sahabat karibku. Dalam keadaan bagaimanapun aku tidak akan meninggalkannya. Jika kalian ditugaskan utk bertanya kepadanya, lakukanlah pekerjaan kalian. Aku tidak akan berpisah dari orang ini sehingga ia dimasukkan ke dalam syurga.”*

Lalu ia berpaling kepada sahabatnya dan berkata, “Aku adalah Al quran yang terkadang kamu baca dengan suara keras dan terkadang dengan suara perlahan.Jangan kuatir setelah menghadapi pertanyaan Munkar dan Nakir ini, engkau tidak akan mengalami kesulitan".. Setelah para malaikat itu selesai memberi pertanyaan, ia menghamparkan tempat tidur dan permadani sutera yang penuh dengan kasturi dari Mala’il A’la 

(Himpunan Fadhilah Amal : 609)*

Kontrak Kecewa (Frustrated Contract) Bukanlah Suatu Pembelaan Bagi Pihak Yang Menyebabkannya (Self-Induced Frustration).

B.I.G. Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd lwn Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd 

[Rayuan Sivil No. Q-02(W)-809-04/2016]

Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes B.I.G. Industrial Gas Sdn Bhd lwn Pan Wijaya Property Sdn Bhd [Rayuan Sivil No. Q-02(W)-809-04/2016] melalui penghakiman bertarikh 23.1.2018 telah mengesahkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang menolak pembelaan Defendan bahawa kontrak jualan hartanah telah menjadi kecewa (frustrated) apabila kebenaran untuk pindahmilik hartanah tersebut ditolak oleh Pihak Berkuasa atas alasan 'tidak dapat dipertimbangkan'. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa Kontrak Kecewa yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan sebagai pembelaan adalah disebabkan oleh Defendan sendiri atau 'self-induced frustration'. Mahkamah Rayuan bersetuju dengan Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa Perintah Perlaksanaan Spesifik sekiranya dibenarkan akan melanggar peruntukan undang-undang dan justeru itu diputuskan bahawa gantirugi adalah remedi yang mencukupi. Walaubagaimanapun, berhubung Kaveat Persendirian yang dimasukkan oleh Plaintif, Mahkamah Rayuan  memutuskan bahawa Plaintif tiada lagi kepentingan untuk dipelihara kerana kepentingan tersebut adalah berbentuk kewangan setelah Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonan untuk Perintah Perlaksanaan Spesifik dan mengarahkan gantirugi untuk ditaksirkan.

Dalam kes tersebut Plaintif telah memasuki satu Perjanjian Jual Beli [SPA] hartanah dengan Defendan yang merupakan pemilik hartanah tersebut di mana SPA mensyaratkan bahawa baki harga jual beli hendaklah dibayar dalam tempoh 3 bulan sebaik sahaja kebenaran pindahmilik secara bertulis diperolehi dari Director of Lands and Surveys Sarawak. Walaubagaimanapun, setelah permohonan dibuat untuk kebenaran tersebut, ianya telah ditolak dengan alasan 'adalah tidak dapat dipertimbangkan'. Defendan kemudian telah memaklumkan kepada Plaintif bahawa SPA tersebut tidak dapat disempurnakan dan menawarkan untuk memulangkan wang pendahuluan yang dibayar. Plaintif walaubagaimanpun tidak bersetuju dengan tindakan Defendan yang menolak perlaksanaan kontrak tersebut dan meminta Defendan merayu kepada Director of Lands and Surveys Sarawak atas penolakan permohonan kebenaran tersebut tetapi telah ditolak oleh Defendan. 

Mahkamah Tinggi yang mendengar tuntutan Plaintif memutuskan bahawa Defendan gagal membuktikan bahawa kontrak jualan tanah menjadi mustahil untuk dilaksanakan dan berpendapat bahawa penolakan permohonan Defendan untuk kebenaran tersebut tidak menjadikan perlaksanaan SPA mustahil kerana Defendan masih boleh merayu atau membuat permohonan yang sempurna tanpa sebarang kesilapan tetapi Defendan telah memilih untuk tidak melakukannya. Hakim bicara menyatakan, " From the evidence adduced, this Court finds that the initial appeal by the Defendant for the requisite consent was flawed in that the material particulars of the said Land was wrong and that the application was sent to the wrong party. The Defendant ought to have either resubmit another application containing the correct particulars of the said Land and to the proper person or lodged and appeal after rectifying the defects in the initial application. The Defendant decided or omitted to do either. Instead the Defendant then proceeded to repudiate the SPA relying on frustration. This showed that the Defendant had no intention to complete the SPA. Furthermore there was evidence adduced to show that chances of an appeal succeeding is high."  Dapatan ini dipersetujui oleh Mahkamah Rayuan.

Hakim Mohd Zawawi Salleh yang bersidang bersama Hakim-Hakim Ahamadi Hj Asnawi dan Kamardin Hashim dalam menyampaikan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan, " We are persuaded, on the reasons proffered by the learned High Court Judge, that the defendant's refusal to re-submit or appeal to the Director for the requisite consent is self-induced frustration....It is clear therefore, that the doctrine of frustration applies only in circumstances where the supervening event is beyond the control of the parties to the contract. It follows that where the alleged frustrating event is caused by the deliberate act or decision of one of the parties, or by his negligence, the doctrine will not apply." Mahkamah Rayuan merujuk kepada buku Sinnadurai on the Contract Act, A Commentary [2015] di mana penulis menyatakan, " As a general rule, a party cannot rely on the doctrine of frustration as a defence for non-performance of a contract, if he himself had been responsible for bringing about the frustrating event; that is the event which a party relies upon as frustrating his contract must not be self-induced." Rujukan juga dibuat kepada kes Hong Leong Bank Bhd lwn Tan Siew Nam [2014] yang menyatakan, "...the party who seeks to rely on frustration must be a party who is not at fault and no blame can be imputed to him as it is trite law that a self-induced frustration does not discharge a party of his contractual obligations."

Berhubung keputusan Hakim bicara yang enggan memberikan Perintah Perlaksanaan Spesifik, Hakim Zawawi menyatakan, " We are in full agreement with the learned High Court Judge's refusal to grant relief which require express consent which had not been obtained, and should the relief be granted, the performance of which relief would contravene an express provision of the law. We agree that the Court, in the circumstances of the case, should not grant an order of specific performance of the SPA against the defendant. We are mindful that there is a long line of  common law authority that specific performance is the default and appropriate remedy for a contract for the sale and purchase of land...We take the stand that it cannot be assumed that damages for breach of contract for the purchase and sale of immovable property will be an inadequate remedy in all cases. In Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] A.C. 514 at 519, the Privy Council observed that, in some circumstances, no distinction could be drawn between land sale contracts and other commercial contracts because 'land can also be an article of commerce and a flat in Hong Kong is probably as goal an example as one could find'. This observation clearly implies that damages could be an adequate remedy in contracts involving land....In this instant appeal, there is no evidence on record to show that the said land is unique in the sense that there is no readily available substitute. The said land has not been uniquely identified by the parties in the SPA or in the trial. We conclude, therefore, that in the circumstances of this instant appeal, damages will be an adequate remedy in the absence of the evidence ti show 'uniqueness' of the said land".

Berhubung keputusan Hakim bicara yang mengekalkan Kaveat Persendirian yang dimasuki Plaintif atas alasan Defendan telah bersetuju melalui Klausa 8 SPA untuk membenarkan Plaintif memasuki Kaveat tersebut, Mahkamah Rayuan tidak bersetuju dan menyatakan, " In our view, since the learned High Court Judge had rejected the application for specific performance in respect of the said land and order the damages to be assessed by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar, the plaintiff's only interest is monetary and the plaintiff no longer had any interest to preserve the caveat. Insofar as the balance of convenience is concerned, it is well established that a critical consideration is the financial status of parties. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the defendant's finances are shaky. We see no reason to believe, and the plaintiff had not suggested, that the defendant would not be financially unable to pay damages should the plaintiff prevails at the assessment of damages proceedings......we find that the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of removing the caveat."

Haji Zanol Rashid Dipanggil Pulang...

Pada awal pagi sabtu, 3 Februari 2018, saya menerima berita daripada sdra Riduan Ibrahim, bahawa sahabat sekuliah (semasa menuntut ijazah pertama bidang undang-undang Universiti Malaya), iaitu Hj Zanol Rashid (jawatan terakhir beliau adalah Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sungai Petani), telah meninggal dunia sekitar jam 3.30 pagi 3 Februari 2018 di sebuah hospital swasta di Sungai Petani, kedah. Awal pagi itu saya bergegas ke Masjid Muhajirin, masjid berhampiran rumahnya di Taman Aman Jaya Sungai Petani. Difahamkan beliau lemah jantung dan sesak nafas.
Berikut gambar-gambar kenangan bersama allahyarham

Gambar atas, semasa kenduri perkahwinan anak perempuannya dalam tahun 2017.

Gambar atas, semasa beliau menziarahi seorang lagi sahabat kami yang uzur (Sekeri Mamat) di Damansara Utama.

Gambar kami (kiri, Sdra Abu Bakar Katar, JC Mahkamah Tinggi Alor Setar), saya dan Mohd Riduan Ibrahim di Masjid Muhajirin pada 3 Februari 2018, menunggu untuk solat jenazah allahyarham Zanol. Kita pakat-pakat sedekahkan Al Fatihah kepada Allahyarham, dan sama-sama memaafkan dan menghalalkan beliau atas segalanya.

Sahabat handai saudara mara Allahyarham sedang menunggu Allahyarham dimandikan...

Akan ada giliran kita pula untuk "dipanggil pulang" menghadap yang Maha Esa. Ya Allah, ampunilah kami atas segalanya...