Seizing lorry for overloading will have ‘crushing effect’, court rules
The Ipoh High Court ruled that seizing a lorry for overloading is not mandatory and should be avoided if it causes a disproportionate 'crushing effect' on a business. The judge upheld a RM35,000 fine but ordered the return of the vehicle, clarifying that the law grants courts discretion in forfeiture cases.
Why it matters
This decision provides a legal precedent for balancing regulatory enforcement with the economic survival of small businesses in Malaysia.
Share Ipoh High Court notes that Tong Xhin Trading is a first-time offender, saying the RM35,000 fine already constitutes a substantial punishment and deterrent. Ipoh High Court judge Justice Moses Susayan said Section 80(3) of the Land Public Transport Act gives courts the option of seizing a vehicle or releasing one that has been seized. PETALING JAYA : The High Court in Ipoh has ruled that the seizure of a semi-trailer lorry for an overloading offence would have a “crushing effect” on a transport company’s business, emphasising that such orders are not automatic under the law. Justice Moses Susayan said the seizure of vehicles under Section 80 of the Land Public Transport Act 2010 (LPTA) is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously to avoid unjust or disproportionate outcomes.
The article reports on a court judgment in a neutral, factual manner without editorializing.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in